People v. Hooker CA3

Filed 9/21/22 P. v. Hooker CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C094262

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10F06795)

ROMAN HOOKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Roman Hooker appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1 Defendant argues the trial court erred when it relied on a special circumstance finding to deny the petition. We will reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings.

1 Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND In 2014, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211). The jury also found true a felony-murder special circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). (People v. Garcia et al. (March 27, 2018, C077082) [nonpub. opn.].)2 The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This court’s opinion on direct appeal summarized the evidence introduced at trial. In short, defendant and three codefendants attempted to rob the victim, a marijuana dealer. The victim was shot and killed in the attempt. This court affirmed defendant’s convictions but struck a parole revocation restitution fine. (People v. Garcia, supra, C077082.) In February 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95. The petition alleged a complaint was filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, that at trial he was convicted of first or second degree murder pursuant to the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and that he could not now be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019. He further alleged he was not the actual killer; did not aid or abet the murder with the intent to kill; and was not a major participant in the felony or did not act with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court appointed counsel and the parties submitted briefing on various issues as directed by the trial court. The trial court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be granted; the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration; and both parties filed briefing on the motion.