People v. Hulbert CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 2022 No. B305259AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, holding that while the trial court erred by failing to allow for briefing, the error was harmless because the record of conviction established the defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by denying a section 1170.95 petition without first allowing for briefing as required by Senate Bill 775.
Whether the trial court's failure to allow for briefing was harmless error given the defendant's ineligibility for relief as a matter of law.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By the terms of section 1170.95, it was error for the trial court to rule without first considering briefing.”

“The error, however, was statutory, and is harmless if it is not reasonably probable that Hulbert would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of error.”

“Here, the error is harmless, because the instructions given at trial reveal that Hulbert was not convicted under a theory of liability which would qualify him for relief, and is therefore ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.”

Filed 3/8/22 P. v. Hulbert CA2/5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B305259

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA067335) v.

REUEL HULBERT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jesus I. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Boyce & Schaefer and Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee, Paul

S. Thies and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

In 2020, defendant and appellant Reuel Hulbert appealed from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his petition for vacatur of his convictions for murder and attempted murder and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.951 and Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437). We affirmed the trial court’s order. Subsequently, our Supreme Court granted Hulbert’s petition for review. On December 29, 2021, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court, with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, §§ 1–2) (Senate Bill 775), which became effective on January 1, 2022. We vacated our July 13, 2021 opinion, and now issue this opinion. We again affirm the trial court’s order.

1 Allfurther statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

People v. Hulbert CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B305259

REUEL HULBERT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

DISCUSSION3

DISPOSITION

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.

AI Brief