People v. Courtney CA3

Filed 12/7/22 P. v. Courtney CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C091706

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 02F00882)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

DERRICK COURTNEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Derrick Courtney appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).2 Defendant argues the trial court erred when it determined he was ineligible for

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). We will refer to the section by its new numbering.

1

resentencing as a matter of law based on the jury’s robbery-murder special circumstance finding. We filed an unpublished opinion on October 12, 2021, affirming the trial court’s order. Our Supreme Court granted review of the matter on December 22, 2021, and transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our previous decision and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698. Defense counsel submitted a letter indicating that, in the interim, the trial court granted a writ of habeas corpus, vacated defendant’s special circumstance finding as well as his murder conviction, and resentenced defendant consistent with section 1172.6. After reviewing the supporting orders from the trial court, we conclude that we can provide no effective relief to defendant through this appeal and will dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2004, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), robbery while acting in concert (§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)), and possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant personally used a firearm as to the murder and robbery counts (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and a robbery-murder special circumstance as to the murder count (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). On appeal, we affirmed the convictions and corrected an error in the fines imposed. (People v. Courtney (Sept. 28, 2006, C047770) [nonpub. opn.].)3 Our opinion laid out the evidence introduced at trial. In short, defendant and codefendant Melvin Peete robbed the victim at his home. As they left the home in the victim’s car, Peete shot the victim, who died shortly thereafter.