People v. Dickson CA3

Filed 1/6/23 P. v. Dickson CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091152

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P03CRF0136)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

TYLER ADAM DICKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2006, a jury found defendant Tyler Adam Dickson guilty of first degree murder with a special circumstance that he had been engaged in robbery and burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A) & (G))1 and found true the allegation that the principal in the offense, codefendant Sean Alan O’Brien, was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crime. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The jury also found

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

true that O’Brien had intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life, plus one year for the firearm enhancement. We reversed the robbery special circumstances finding as to both defendants based on instructional error, but otherwise affirmed the judgment in People v. O’Brien et al. (Aug. 4, 2008, C054011, C054462) (nonpub. opn.) (O’Brien).2 On January 31, 2019, defendant sought resentencing pursuant to section 1172.63 in light of changes brought about by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), which “ ‘amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.’ (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)” (People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 325, disapproved on another ground in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-962.) The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant was barred from relief because he was a major participant in the burglary who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Defendant appeals the denial of the petition, arguing that under People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 the evidence is legally insufficient to prove he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, and thus, the trial court erroneously denied his petition.