People v. DeFrance CA3

Filed 12/10/21 P. v. DeFrance CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C091275

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05F07445)

CURTIS DEFRANCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Curtis DeFrance of the first degree murder of Stephan Brophy, robbery, and vehicle theft. The jury found true a firearm enhancement allegation and a Penal Code section 190.21 special circumstances allegation. This court affirmed the convictions in 2008. Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. After appointing counsel and receiving briefing, the trial court

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

“dismissed”2 the petition because it determined defendant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. Defendant now contends the trial court violated his right to due process by making disputed factual findings and dismissing the petition at the prima facie stage, rather than issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error by the trial court, we will affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND To facilitate our review, we summarize the relevant background facts from this court’s opinion in defendant’s previous appeal from the underlying conviction, People v. DeFrance (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 486 (DeFrance). Brophy lived in a condominium with her two adult children. (DeFrance, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 490.) Her children kept their cars parked in two parking spaces nearby. (Ibid.) On the morning of July 10, 2005, Brophy’s neighbors heard a woman yelling, “get out of that car,” and then screeching tires. (Ibid.) The police found Brophy on her back in the parking lot, with fluid coming out of her ear and a tire mark across her torso. (Ibid.) That morning a man, J.B., saw a car speed down the road and make an illegal U-turn. (Id. at pp. 490-491) J.B. contacted the police, and eventually identified defendant as the driver from a photo lineup. (Id. at p. 491.) The stolen car was recovered, and a crime scene investigator found defendant’s palm print on the driver window. (Ibid.) T.E., a convicted felon, testified that someone named Curtis came to an apartment where he had been staying and told him that he had been trying to steal a woman’s car and that he ran her over because she tried to stop him. (DeFrance, supra,