People v. Wilson CA3

Filed 1/25/23 P. v. Wilson CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092385

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 04F06813)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

JAMAUR WILSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Jamaur Wilson guilty of several offenses, including the first degree murder of Alvin Earl Richardson during the course of a robbery. The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole on the murder and robbery- murder special circumstance, and we affirmed his conviction on appeal. (People v. Gordon et al. (July 27, 2010, C056183) [nonpub. opn.] (Gordon).) After serving over a

1

decade in prison, defendant petitioned the trial court under Penal Code1 section 1172.62 for resentencing based on changes to the felony-murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2019). The trial court denied his petition, finding the record established defendant was ineligible for resentencing given the jury’s true finding on the robbery-murder special circumstance. The trial court reasoned that in finding the special circumstance true, the jury necessarily found defendant was either the actual killer, aided and abetted the actual killer with the intent to kill, or was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life during the crimes. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s resentencing petition, holding that the jury’s true special-circumstance finding, which had not been set aside through habeas corpus proceedings, precluded relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. (People v. Wilson (Dec. 6, 2021, C092385 ) [nonpub. opn.].) The California Supreme Court subsequently granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our opinion and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698. By separate order, we vacated our decision. In supplemental briefing after transfer, the parties agree that under Strong the jury’s true finding on the robbery-murder special circumstance, which was made before our Supreme Court’s decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 clarified what it means to be a major participant who acts