People v. Carlstrom CA4/3

Filed 2/2/22 P. v. Carlstrom CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059738

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06CF3677)

STEPHEN PAUL CARLSTROM, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Request for judicial notice granted. Robert J. Beles and Joseph L. Ryan for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Several inmates in Theo Lacy Jail in the City of Orange beat an inmate to death because they believed he was a child molester. A jury convicted Stephen Paul Carlstrom, Jr., and four codefendants of second degree murder. We upheld the conviction in People v. Guillen (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 934 (Guillen). On May 10, 2019, Carlstrom filed a petition to vacate his conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause (OSC). In this appeal, Carlstrom alleges this ruling was erroneous because he was entitled to relief and the court improperly relied on the prior appellate opinion (Guillen) as being part of the record of conviction. The Attorney General (AG) concedes Carlstrom’s petition for resentencing stated a prima facia case that he was potentially eligible for relief, and therefore, the ruling should be reversed. We accept the AG’s concession and reverse the order and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to issue an OSC. FACTS We incorporate by reference the detailed summary of facts set forth in Guillen, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 934. Simply stated, in 2011 a jury determined Carlstrom was guilty of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and the trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison. In May 2019, Carlstrom filed a petition to vacate his murder conviction and for resentencing under section 1170.95. The petition alleged, “One of the three prosecution theories of liability for [Carlstrom] submitted to the jury was ‘aiding and abetting—natural and probable consequences’ . . . ‘[and t]he record does not disclose which theory the jury relied on in convicting”’ him. Carlstrom argued he was eligible under section 1170.95 to have his second degree murder conviction vacated.