People v. Ting CA2/2

Filed 2/15/23 P. v. Ting CA2/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B311125

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA253204) v.

SUNNY HSIAO SHIN TING,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Reversed.

Brad Kaiserman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan S. Pithey, Assistant Attorney

General, Idan Ivri and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. We affirmed the denial of defendant and appellant Sunny Hsiao Shin Ting’s (defendant) petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code former section 1170.95 in People v. Ting (Dec. 22, 2021, B311125) (nonpub. opn.).1 By order dated November 30, 2022, the California Supreme Court returned the case to this court with directions to vacate our decision dated December 22, 2021, and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong). In 2007, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and found true the felony-murder special circumstance alleged pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), as well as several firearm enhancement allegations.2 Defendant was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole, which we affirmed in People v. Ting (Sept. 15, 2009, B209911) (nonpub. opn.). In 2021, defendant filed a petition for vacatur and resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court denied defendant’s facially sufficient petition at the prima facie stage without appointing counsel, based upon the jury’s true finding under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), as well as the court’s