People v. Martinez CA3

Filed 3/2/23 P. v. Martinez CA3 *Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093077

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F04716)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

CHRISTINA MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

In August 2011, a jury found defendant Christina Martinez guilty of first degree murder, robbery, and burglary and found true robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstances. On appeal, this court affirmed defendant’s murder conviction but vacated the robbery and burglary convictions because the charges were untimely brought.

1

Thereafter, defendant sought resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage, finding the record established defendant was ineligible for resentencing on multiple grounds. Defendant appealed and, in an unpublished opinion, we affirmed, agreeing with the trial court that the jury’s special circumstance findings barred her from resentencing as a matter of law. (People v. Martinez (Mar. 21, 2022, C093077) [nonpub. opn.].) Our Supreme Court granted review and ultimately transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of its recent decision, People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong). We now conclude, and the People concede, that the trial court’s denial of the petition is inconsistent with section 1172.6 and Strong. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The relevant facts3 are taken from our unpublished opinion following defendant’s direct appeal. (People v. Hammons (Jan. 12, 2015, C069317) [nonpub. opn.].)4 In July 2004, defendant participated in a home invasion robbery and burglary with her boyfriend and codefendant, Robert Lee Hammons, and two teenage boys. During the robbery,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. Although defendant filed her petition under former section 1170.95, we will refer to it as section 1172.6 throughout this opinion. 3 We provide this summary of facts from People v. Hammons solely for context and do not rely on these facts for our analysis or disposition here. (See § 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).) 4 We construed defendant’s request for judicial notice as a motion to incorporate by reference the record in her direct appeal and our corresponding opinion, and granted the motion.