People v. Richardson CA1/1

Filed 10/25/22 P. v. Richardson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161794 v. WILLIE RICHARDSON III, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-000409-3) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Willie Richardson III was convicted of two counts of attempted murder after a jury trial. In 2020, he petitioned for resentencing under former Penal Code2 section 1170.95, renumbered section 1172.6.3 The

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California 1

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1 because this appeal “is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application.” In addition, the parties apparently agree the matter must be remanded for further proceedings. 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 3

1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10, eff. June 30, 2022; Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)

trial court summarily denied his petition and Richardson appealed. After the matter was fully briefed in this court, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 775), which extended section 1172.6 to persons convicted of attempted murder. For reasons discussed in this opinion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with section 1172.6. BACKGROUND We do not recite any facts of the underlying crime as there are no facts available to us in the record on appeal and the only issue in the case is one of pure statutory law. Defendant was charged by information filed on April 4, 2000, with two counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a)/664, subd. (a), counts 1 and 2); carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a), count 3); first degree robbery (count 4: §§ 211/212.5, subd. (a)); assault with a deadly weapon likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 5); and kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, subd. (b), count 6). The information also charged multiple enhancements for intentionally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury, personal use of a firearm, personally inflicting great bodily harm, and committing offenses while on bail and on own recognizance. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of both counts of attempted murder, carjacking, assault with a deadly weapon, and kidnapping. Several enhancements were found true, including that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury in the commission of the attempted murders, carjacking, and kidnapping. He was acquitted of residential robbery. He was sentenced to life on count one with a sentence of 25-years-to-life for the firearm enhancement. The sentences on the other counts were made concurrent or stayed.