People v. Hundley CA3

Filed 1/18/23 P. v. Hundley CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092618

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F09808)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

RICHARD ANTONIO HUNDLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

Defendant Richard Antonio Hundley appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under what is now Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 He argues

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 20, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the section by its new numbering.

1

the trial court erred by declining to issue an order to show cause because the court looked beyond his declaration that he met the requirements of section 1172.6. He further argues the trial court erred by determining he was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law based on the jury’s felony-murder special circumstance finding. We filed an unpublished opinion on February 14, 2021, affirming the trial court’s order. Our Supreme Court granted review of the matter on April 27, 2022, and on November 23, 2022, 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 (Strong). Defendant submitted supplemental briefing arguing the case should be remanded to the trial court; the People filed a supplemental brief agreeing. We will reverse the court’s order denying the petition and direct the court to issue an order to show cause and, if necessary, conduct an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s petition. BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s conviction is not necessary to resolve his claim on appeal.3 In short, after meeting the victim, David Barreda, defendant and his codefendant, Curtis Chapman, discussed a plan to kill Barreda but decided to rob him instead. After the three had a confrontation, Chapman shot Barreda in the back of the head. Immediately before Chapman shot Barreda, defendant told him they were going to “take [his] shit,” he acted to distract Barreda while Chapman shot him, and after Barreda was shot, as Chapman removed Barreda’s gun, he told defendant the gun was now theirs. Defendant and his codefendant dragged Barreda from the kitchen to the garage, placed him in the trunk of his car, and drove the car to a nearby location. The next day, Barreda’s body was discovered in the trunk of his car. He died