People v. Sullivan CA2/8

Filed 3/2/22 P. v. Sullivan CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B308785

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA058054) v.

RANDY DESHAWN SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Victor J. Morse, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnson and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner Randy D. Sullivan, along with his co-defendants Joshua Lockett and Terrell Henderson, was convicted in 2014 of the murder of Brandon Houston. All three defendants petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court held a single evidentiary hearing where no new evidence was presented, and the defendants based their arguments on the trial record. The court denied all three petitions for resentencing in a single order in August of 2019. Lockett and Henderson filed timely appeals. We resolved these appeals via a nonpublished opinion. (People v. Lockett et al. (July 23, 2021, B301103) [nonpub. opn] (Lockett).) In Lockett, we reversed the trial court and ordered that Lockett’s and Henderson’s petitions for resentencing be granted. Neither the trial court nor his counsel advised Sullivan of his right to appeal the denial of his petition for resentencing. Over a year after the denial, Sullivan filed a writ of habeas corpus in pro. per. It was denied, and he attempted to appeal that denial. He later sought to have the habeas corpus appeal construed as a timely appeal of the denial of his petition for resentencing. This court granted the unopposed request to allow Sullivan to proceed with his untimely challenge in May of 2021, shortly before we issued Lockett granting the petitions of Sullivan’s co-defendants. DISCUSSION Lockett already details the underlying factual record, and the reasons why we concluded the trial court’s conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence as to Sullivan’s co-