People v. Potts CA5

Filed 10/19/22 P. v. Potts CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F081141 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF041052D-98) v.

JAMES EDWARD POTTS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary L. Paden, Judge. Stephen Greenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christina H. Simpson and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Petitioner James Edward Potts petitioned the superior court, pursuant to former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) of the Penal Code,1 for resentencing on his conviction for the first degree murder of Byron Jennings III. The superior court denied the petition at the prima facie stage after finding petitioner ineligible for relief. (See § 1172.6, subd. (c).) On appeal, petitioner argues the denial of his petition at the prima facie stage was erroneous. We agree. We therefore reverse the superior court’s order denying the petition and remand with directions to issue an order to show cause. PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 In 1998, an information was filed alleging petitioner, along with codefendants Larry Ward, Randy Spohn, and Daniel Blunt, committed the following offenses against Jennings: murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), robbery (§ 211; count 2), burglary (§ 459; count 3), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 4). As to count 1, the information alleged the special circumstances that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery and burglary. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A), (G).) As to petitioner and Blunt only, the information also alleged prior conviction allegations.3 (People v. Ward (Oct. 22, 2002, F035608) [nonpub. opn.] (Ward).) During trial, petitioner pled no contest to receiving stolen property. The robbery count against him was dismissed. A jury found petitioner guilty of first degree murder and burglary, and found both special circumstances to be true. During the penalty phase,