People v. Lipsey CA2/8

Filed 1/31/22 P. v. Lipsey CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B308671

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA340280) v.

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed.

Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Irvi and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

In 2009, Christopher Lipsey was convicted of attempted murder with true findings on several gang, firearm, and prior conviction enhancements. On July 13, 2020, Lipsey filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1437 and Penal Code1 section 1170.95. After appointing counsel, the trial court denied the petition, finding Lipsey ineligible for relief under Senate Bill No. 1437 because (1) he was convicted of attempted murder, not murder; (2) the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine as the basis for the attempted murder conviction; (3) appellant was the shooter. We affirm.

A. Statement of Facts The statement of facts is taken from this court’s opinion affirming appellant’s conviction. (People v. Lipsey (Dec. 2, 2010, B216787) [nonpub. opn.].) During a confrontation with rival gang members outside a market, appellant pulled a gun from his waistband and fired a single gunshot, wounding the victim. The shooting was caught on the market’s surveillance videos. Upon his arrest, appellant admitted to police that he had “socked” the victim. He said the victim then pulled out a gun which appellant grabbed and used to shoot the victim. The victim later identified appellant as the shooter from a photospread, although at the preliminary hearing he claimed he was forced to do so or face revocation of his own parole. (Ibid.) At trial, the People argued appellant was the actual killer. Appellant argued his confession was false; he acted in self- defense; and the shooting was, at most, an assault with a deadly weapon because he did not have the intent to kill. The jury found