People v. Coleman CA3

Filed 9/28/22 P. v. Coleman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094465

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F03498)

v.

RAYMOND NELSON COLEMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2006, a jury found defendant Raymond Nelson Coleman committed murder during a robbery. Later, the Legislature created a path for relief for defendants who had previously been convicted of murder on a felony-murder theory but who could not have been convicted under a narrowed scope of the felony-murder rule. Defendant sought such relief, but the trial court ruled he was ineligible as a matter of law. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred. In light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong), we agree with defendant and reverse.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We take much of the background from our prior opinion. (People v. Coleman (Dec. 7, 2018, C082641) [nonpub. opn.] (Coleman).) In December 2004, defendant and his codefendants Andre Marcus Allen and Sammy Anderson went to a park to consummate a drug deal that defendant had arranged with Dwayne Harvey. When Harvey arrived, he was shot and killed. (Coleman, supra, C082641.) At trial, Anderson and defendant each testified they saw Allen shoot Harvey. Allen testified defendant shot Harvey. Defendant and Allen were found guilty by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187) and second degree robbery (§ 211). The jury also made a “special circumstance” finding, inter alia, that defendant committed the murder during a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). (Coleman, supra, C082641.) The section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17) felony-murder special circumstance applies to a “major participant” in the underlying felony who acted “with reckless indifference to human life” (id., subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder. (Coleman, supra, C082641.) We affirmed defendant’s convictions in 2008. (Ibid.) In People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, our Supreme Court “for the first time provided substantial guidance on the meaning of” the terms “ ‘major participant’ ” and “ ‘with reckless indifference to human life’ ” found in section 190.2, subdivision (d). (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 703.) “In Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) . . . , the Legislature significantly narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule. It also created a path to relief for