People v. Bridget CA4/3

Filed 1/23/23 P. v. Bridget CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061150

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13CF1025)

ANTHONY EDWARD BRIDGET, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed. Gordon S. Brownell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A jury convicted defendant Anthony Edward Bridget of conspiracy to 1 commit murder (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a)), first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), aggravated assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and false imprisonment by violence (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)). As to the murder, the jury found two special circumstance allegations true: murder for financial gain, and murder by means of lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1), (15)). The trial court found prior conviction enhancement allegations true for four prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e), 1170.12, subds. (b),(c)), two serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). In 2020, another panel of this court affirmed the judgment in part and reversed it in part. (People v. Bridget (Aug. 31, 2020, G056928) [nonpub. opn.].) In November 2021, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former 2 section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6). In his petition, defendant averred: “1. A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against me that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. [¶] 2a. At trial, I was convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. [¶] . . . [¶] 3. I could not now be convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder because of changes made to . . . § § 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019.” The trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition for resentencing. The court concluded defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the murder conviction was not based on felony murder or a natural and probable consequences theory. Instead, the court noted defendant’s conviction was based on the theory of aiding and abetting. The court also held the jury necessarily found defendant acted with the