People v. Hanson CA3

Filed 5/20/22 P. v. Hanson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093377

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 00F01901)

v.

LIONEL HANSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2001, a jury found defendant Lionel Hanson guilty of second degree attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187)1 and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true the allegation that during the commission of the attempted murder, defendant personally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury to his victim

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. (People v. Hanson (Nov. 13, 2003, C039008) [nonpub. opn.].)2 In 2020, defendant sought resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. After appointing counsel, the trial court denied defendant’s petition without issuing an order to show cause. The trial court found defendant failed to state a prima facie case because section 1170.95 did not apply to convictions for attempted murder. Defendant timely appealed. In October 2021, while this case was pending, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which, among other things, amended or clarified the language of section 1170.95 to include “attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . .” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.) The People nevertheless continue to argue defendant is not eligible for relief because he was the actual perpetrator of the crime, convicted on a theory of express malice. We agree and affirm the trial court’s ruling. BACKGROUND On July 20, 1999, defendant got into a verbal altercation with Jasmine A. (People v. Hanson, supra, C039008.) Jasmine ran from defendant and he “gave chase.” (Ibid.) When defendant caught up with Jasmine, she turned around and he “struck her on the nose with a gun, causing her to fall.” (Ibid.) Defendant then “shot Jasmine in the face, neck[,] and shoulder. Jasmine managed to run away and was taken to a hospital. The wounds were through-and-through, causing six holes in Jasmine, all of which were life threatening.” (Ibid.) At defendant’s trial, the jury was instructed that defendant could be found guilty of attempted murder only if he acted with the specific intent to kill Jasmine when he shot her. The jury also was instructed on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary