People v. Dawson CA3

Filed 4/20/22 P. v. Dawson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093472

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F07238)

v.

AMOURA DOMINQUE DAWSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

After simultaneous but separate jury trials, defendants Amoura Dominique Dawson and Adrienne Marquis Boulware were convicted of second degree murder and torture for beating Audie Hogue to death. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 15 years to life in prison. Defendant did not appeal her judgment. Boulware appealed and we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Boulware (March 3, 2015, C075063) [nonpub. opn.] (Boulware).) We have granted defendant’s request to incorporate by reference the record in Boulware, (case No. C075063) in the instant appeal.

1

In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code.) The trial court denied the petition, finding that because the jury was never instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequence doctrine, defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying the petition. We affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Defendant was charged with first degree murder and torture for her role in stomping, punching, and kicking Audie Hogue to death. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 206.) Defendant and codefendant Boulware both kicked and hit Hogue until he could not get up; he was found dead the next morning. Hogue had blunt force injuries to his head, neck, and torso and sustained multiple serious internal injuries. (Boulware, supra, C075063.) The jury was instructed on direct aider and abettor liability as well as malice aforethought murder but not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and torture. In her petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95, defendant averred that (1) a complaint or information was filed against her that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (2) at trial, she was convicted of first or second degree murder pursuant to the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine; and (3) she could not now be convicted of second degree murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189 effective January l, 2019. The trial court denied the petition, finding that defendant’s jury was not instructed on either felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine of accomplice