People v. McPherson CA3

Filed 1/24/23 P. v. McPherson CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093340

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F05321)

v.

PATRICK JEROME McPHERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Patrick Jerome McPherson, along with accomplices Patrick Joseph Godines and Travis Monrow Mabson, were all convicted of felony murder, attempted robbery, and burglary after their attempt to rob Michael Sanderson in his apartment ended in Sanderson’s death. In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied the petition on the basis that

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without substantive change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Although

1

defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Defendant appealed, arguing he demonstrated prima facie entitlement to relief, and that the trial court should have issued an order to show cause and conducted an evidentiary hearing. We found no error and affirmed. Our Supreme Court granted review but deferred further action pending disposition in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698. Following its decision in Strong, our Supreme Court transferred this matter back to us with direction to vacate our decision and reconsider in light of Strong. We now conclude defendant demonstrated prima facie entitlement to relief, and that the trial court should have issued an order to show cause and conducted an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing and remand the matter for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND For the reasons detailed in our discussion, we need not provide considerable detail of the factual background of defendant’s crime. In 2011, defendant arranged for his friend Jeanette Campbell to strip for Sanderson to help him with a robbery, and Campbell asked her friend Aubry Toews to help her be a distraction. (People v. McPherson (July 25, 2018, C078601) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant, Godines, and Mabson arrived at the apartment complex after the women entered the apartment. Defendant texted Toews to let her know they were waiting. Eventually, Toews went outside Sanderson’s apartment to signal the men that it was time for the robbery to occur. Defendant was driving, so he waited in the car while Godines and Mabson went to the apartment. Godines had a gun. (Ibid.) After entering the apartment, Godines opened the door to the bedroom where Campbell was dancing for Sanderson and turned on the lights. (People v. McPherson,