People v. Bacot CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Jul 11, 2022 No. B313851Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing, holding that the defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because his murder conviction was based on direct aiding and abetting rather than felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Furthermore, the court held that Assembly Bill No. 333 does not apply retroactively to cases where the conviction is already final.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.
Whether Assembly Bill No. 333 applies retroactively to a final conviction.
Whether the defendant may re-raise sentencing and equal protection claims previously rejected on direct appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Bacot’s first degree murder conviction was predicated on the theory that he was a direct aider and abettor not on a natural and probable consequences theory”

“Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue have concluded that AB 333 applies retroactively where a defendant’s conviction was not final before the amendments to section 186.22 took effect.”

“Appellant may not re-raise them here.”

Filed 7/11/22 P. v. Bacot CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B313851

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA226685)

JEREMY DORIAN BACOT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed. John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Jeremy Bacot appeals the denial of his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing.1 His appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Appellant filed a supplemental brief arguing that the gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and gang murder special circumstance finding (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)) are no longer valid in light of Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 699) (AB 333), which he contends should apply retroactively to his case. Appellant further reasserts arguments he unsuccessfully raised in his direct appeal: the trial court impermissibly imposed both firearm and gang sentencing enhancements, and violated his equal protection rights. We reject appellant’s contentions and affirm. (See People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1028, 1040 (Cole), review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) BACKGROUND I. Convictions A. Factual Background 2 On December 13, 2001, appellant was driving his Mustang; codefendant Cochese Wilson was in the front passenger seat. At approximately 10:30 p.m., appellant pulled alongside Wilbert Smith at a stop sign at 94th Place and Haas Street and

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The facts are drawn from our opinion resolving appellant’s direct appeal, People v. Bacot (Oct. 13, 2005, B175583) [nonpub. opn.], on which the parties and trial court relied. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the opinion, which appears to have been inadvertently omitted from the appellate record.

People v. Bacot CA2/4

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B313851

JEREMY DORIAN BACOT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

COLLINS, J.

WILLHITE, ACTING P.J.

CURREY, J.

AI Brief