People v. Bludworth CA3

Filed 12/15/22 P. v. Bludworth CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091249

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR- CNV-1998-0016792) v. OPINION ON TRANSFER TIMOTHY LEE BLUDWORTH,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case returns to us on transfer with directions from our Supreme Court. A jury found defendant Timothy Lee Bludworth guilty of first degree murder and robbery in 1999. The jury also found true a robbery-murder special circumstance. Defendant petitioned the trial court for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95,1 based on changes made to the felony-murder rule by Senate Bill No. 1437

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2019 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4) (Senate Bill No. 1437). The trial court denied defendant’s petition, finding the record established defendant was ineligible for resentencing because the jury found the special circumstance true. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in relying on the special circumstance finding to disqualify him from relief. We disagreed with defendant in our original opinion filed October 5, 2021, and affirmed the trial court’s order. Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; that court has now directed us to reconsider the matter in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698. Having done so, we agree with the parties that the trial court’s order denying the petition must be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND We take the basic facts of defendant’s case from our opinion in his original appeal. (People v. Bludworth (Oct. 31, 2001, C032613) [nonpub. opn.] (Bludworth).)2 Defendant knew the victim, a methamphetamine dealer, and on October 20, 1995, arranged a meeting at a grocery store for a methamphetamine sale. During the planned meeting, defendant’s brother-in-law, Bertran Thompson, pulled out a gun and defendant took the victim’s gun. When Thompson asked the victim for the methamphetamine, the victim replied that his girlfriend had it in her vehicle parked nearby and that he wanted to see the money first. Thompson then shot the victim several times. The victim died at the scene from the gunshot wounds. (Bludworth, supra, C032613.)