People v. Martin CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Apr 27, 2023 No. B324490Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding the defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law because his jury found he was either the actual killer or acted with the intent to kill.

Issues

Whether the defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 in light of People v. Strong.
Whether a section 1172.6 petition is the appropriate vehicle to raise a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“His jury found that he was either the actual killer or had the intent to kill, rendering him ineligible for relief.”

“As defendant seems to acknowledge in his supplemental brief, a section 1172.6 resentencing motion is not the appropriate place to raise an issue of actual innocence based on new evidence.”

Filed 4/27/23 P. v. Martin CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B324490

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A982883-02) v.

JEROME MARTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa B. Lench, Judge. Affirmed.

Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

In 1989, defendant and his codefendant murdered two people and attempted to murder a third. In 1993, he was convicted of two counts of special circumstances murder (felony murder), as well as attempted murder and other offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In 1995, his conviction was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Martin (Apr. 25, 1995, B081736) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2018, Senate Bill No. 1437 invalidated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and narrowed liability for felony murder. Specifically, a defendant may no longer be convicted of felony murder unless he was (1) the actual killer; (2) a direct aider and abettor, or (3) a major participant in the crime who acted with reckless indifference to human life, as defined in the felony-murder special circumstance. (Pen. Code, § 189, subd. (e).)1 It also enacted section 1170.95 (now 1172.6), which provides means by which a defendant convicted of murder under prior law could seek resentencing under the new version of the law. In 2019, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court summarily denied the petition. In 2021, we affirmed the denial, on the basis that defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. (People v. Martin (Jan. 19, 2021, B299948) [nonpub. opn.] (1170.95 Appeal).) Specifically, we observed that, in connection with the felony-murder special circumstance, defendant’s jury was instructed that it must find he was either the actual killer or an aider and abettor who acted with the intent to kill; there was no

People v. Martin CA2/5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B324490

JEROME MARTIN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BAKER, J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief