People v. Mitchell CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Sep 1, 2022 No. B316165Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a pre-Banks and pre-Clark special circumstance finding does not preclude a defendant from establishing a prima facie case for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, requiring the matter to proceed to an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Whether a pre-Banks and pre-Clark special circumstance finding renders a defendant ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court conducted a proper evidentiary hearing or erroneously relied on pre-existing jury findings to deny the petition.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant’s special circumstance finding was made prior to Banks and Clark, and thus cannot provide the basis for the summary denial of her petition.”

Filed 9/1/22 P. v. Mitchell CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B316165

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA020811) v.

JOYCE YVETTE MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Reversed.

Eric R. Larson, 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, Assistant

Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ****** The trial court denied the motion for resentencing filed by Joyce Mitchell (defendant) under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95).2 We conclude the denial was improper under our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong), and reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts A. The underlying crime In July 1993, defendant spent a few days in Palm Springs with two friends of hers, James Humdy (Humdy) and Lauren Edwards (Edwards), and her five-year-old son. Defendant knew that Humdy was a gang member who had committed violent acts in the past and that Edwards was his protégé in the gang. While in Palm Springs, the group slept on the floor of an apartment rented by defendant’s aunt. The group had no money and discussed, as a means of getting some cash, ordering a pizza and robbing and carjacking the person who delivered it. Anxious to be rid of defendant and her friends, defendant’s aunt arranged for one of her friends from work to give them a ride back to Los Angeles in their truck. Unbeknownst to defendant’s aunt or her friend, the group discussed robbing and

People v. Mitchell CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B316165

JOYCE YVETTE MITCHELL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief