People v. Camacho CA2/3

Filed 2/28/23 P. v. Camacho CA2/3 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B312190

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA027667) v.

FRANCISCO JAVIER CAMACHO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dabney, Judge. Reversed and remanded with direction. Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel C. Chang and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________ In 1992, a jury convicted Francisco Javier Camacho of first degree murder, attempted murder, second degree robbery, and two counts of attempted second degree robbery. The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed while Camacho was engaged in the commission of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive five years for the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement, as well as concurrent determinate terms for the other convictions. A different panel of this Division affirmed Camacho’s conviction. (People v. Camacho (Dec. 1, 1995, B071909) [nonpub. opn.].) Following our affirmance, Camacho petitioned for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).2 The trial court denied his request without appointing counsel, concluding that the true findings on the special circumstance allegation precluded relief. Camacho did not timely appeal. Shortly thereafter, Camacho filed a supplemental request with the assistance of counsel, raising several new legal authorities. The trial court adhered to its decision. In May 2022, a majority