People v. Portillo CA2/3

Filed 11/23/22 P. v. Portillo CA2/3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B298967

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA030961-03) v.

JOSEPH JOHN PORTILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Remanded with direction. Stephen Temko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________

In 1997, a jury convicted Joseph John Portillo of, among other crimes, felony murder with true findings on the special circumstance allegations that the murders were committed in the course of a burglary and an attempted robbery and that Portillo committed multiple murders. Years later, Portillo petitioned for vacation of his murder conviction and resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied the petition, concluding that, in light of the special circumstance findings, Portillo was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life and, as such, he was ineligible for relief. Portillo appealed the order denying his petition, and we affirmed the order. (People v. Portillo (June 29, 2021, B298967) [nonpub. opn.].) Our California Supreme Court granted review and has now transferred the matter back to us with the direction to vacate our decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong). Doing so, we conclude that the trial court’s order must be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.