People v. Santana CA2/6

Filed 2/16/23 P. v. Santana CA2/6 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B299353 (Super. Ct. No. TA063973) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County)

v. OPINION FOLLOWING ANDRES SANTANA, TRANSFER FROM SUPREME COURT Defendant and Respondent.

Andres Santana was convicted in 2002 of two counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and two counts of robbery (§ 211). The jury found true the special circumstance allegations that Santana committed the murders while engaged in a robbery (§ 190.2, subds. (a)(17)(A), (d)), for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), which resulted in multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The trial court sentenced Santana to life without the possibility of parole plus 10 years for the gang

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

enhancement. We affirmed his convictions on appeal. (People v. Santana (Apr. 11, 2005, B167415) [nonpub. opn.] (Santana I).) In 2019, Santana filed a petition to vacate his murder convictions and to be resentenced pursuant to section 1170.95, which was added to the Penal Code by Senate Bill No. 1437 (S.B. No. 1437). (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2019.)2 The trial court denied the petition without appointing counsel. It concluded the petition lacked merit because (1) the jury determined Santana was a major participant in the underlying crime by finding the felony-murder special circumstance true and (2) the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s order denying Santana’s resentencing petition, concluding that the jury’s true special circumstance finding precluded relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. (People v. Santana (Mar. 3, 2022, B299353) [nonpub. opn.] (Santana II).) The California Supreme Court 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 (Strong). By separate order, we vacated our opinion. In post-transfer supplemental briefing, the parties agree that under Strong the jury’s true finding on the robbery-murder special circumstance does not render Santana ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Upon reconsideration, we reverse and remand for further proceedings under section 1172.6.