People v. Miles CA3

Filed 11/18/22 P. v. Miles CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093598

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F09113)

v.

GENNEL MILES,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2013, defendant Gennel Miles was ordered to serve a life sentence after a jury found him guilty of murder and other offenses based on his participation in a robbery. The jury found true a felony-murder special-circumstance allegation (a murder during a robbery).

1

After defendant’s conviction, our Supreme Court issued two decisions providing substantial guidance on factors that must be considered by a jury in felony-murder special-circumstance sentencing enhancements. (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788; People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522.) Specifically, Banks clarified the factors that need to be considered in determining whether a defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony. (Banks, at pp. 797-804.) In Clark, the court clarified the factors that must be considered in determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. (Clark, at pp. 611-623.) In 2019, defendant filed a petition seeking to vacate his murder conviction and to be resentenced under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 The trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition, reasoning that the felony-murder special-circumstance finding rendered him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. While defendant’s appeal was pending, our Supreme Court held that a pre-Banks/Clark felony- murder special-circumstance finding does not render a section 1172.6 petitioner ineligible for relief as a matter of law. (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong).) Based on Strong, we must vacate the trial court’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings not inconsistent with Strong. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Defendant’s Case Given the nature of the instant appeal, a detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s convictions is unnecessary. In sum, defendant and two compatriots lured the