People v. Mabson CA3

Filed 1/25/23 P. v. Mabson CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093654

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

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

TRAVIS MABSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Travis Mabson, along with accomplices Patrick Jerome McPherson and Patrick Joseph Godines, were all convicted of felony murder with special circumstances, attempted robbery, and burglary after their attempt to rob Michael Sanderson in his apartment ended in Sanderson’s death. We affirmed defendant’s convictions on appeal. (People v. Godines (July 25, 2018, C078214/C078601) [nonpub. opn.] (Godines).)

1

Defendant later petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.62 based on changes to the felony-murder rule and 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 the petition after finding defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law given the jury’s true findings on the attempted robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstances. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the court’s order denying defendant’s resentencing petition, holding that the jury’s true special-circumstance findings, which had not been set aside through habeas corpus proceedings, precluded relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. (People v. Mabson (Apr. 15, 2022, C093654) [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 findings on the attempted robbery and burglary special circumstances, which were 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 with reckless indifference to human life, do not render defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Having reconsidered the matter, we agree and will reverse and remand for further proceedings under section 1172.6.