People v. Patterson CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jun 21, 2022 No. B313045Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that pre-Banks/Clark special circumstance findings do not preclude a defendant from making a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.

Issues

Whether special circumstance findings made prior to People v. Banks and People v. Clark render a defendant ineligible for section 1170.95 relief as a matter of law.
Whether the defendant met his prima facie burden to establish entitlement to relief under section 1170.95.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we see no reason to depart from our prior conclusion that the special circumstances findings do not prevent defendant from making a prima facie showing that he is entitled to relief.”

“Defendant therefore met his prima facie burden to establish he was entitled to relief.”

Filed 6/21/22 P. v. Patterson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B313045

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA040726) v.

TRYNUN PATTERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Stephen M. Vasil, 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, Idan Ivri and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Trynun Patterson appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 We reverse and remand with directions.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Conviction

On May 3, 1999, defendant and three others robbed a jewelry and music store in Long Beach. (People v. Patterson (Sept. 25, 2001, B143582) (Patterson), review granted and opn. ordered nonpub. Dec. 19, 2001, S101726.) During the robbery, one of defendant’s accomplices shot and killed the store owner Gary Kim. (Ibid.) Two days later, defendant was arrested for an unrelated crime. (Ibid.) After being interviewed by homicide detectives, defendant confessed to participating in the murder. (Ibid.) On July 15, 1999, the Los Angeles County District Attorney (District Attorney) charged defendant and two codefendants by information with: murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), with a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed while defendants were engaged in the crime of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 2, 3); and conspiracy to commit robbery (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 6). The District Attorney also alleged that defendant personally used a handgun in the commission of the murder and robberies. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1).)

People v. Patterson CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B313045

TRYNUN PATTERSON,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

C. Prima Facie Showing

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief