People v. Hill CA3

Filed 8/25/23 P. v. Hill CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097166

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 06F02697)

v.

CERON HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ceron Hill appeals from an order denying his petitions to vacate his murder conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appointed counsel for defendant has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Defendant filed his petitions in February 2022 and April 2022 under former section 1170.95. Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6 with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the statute by its current section number.

1

there are any arguable issues on appeal and defendant has filed a supplemental brief raising various arguments. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.) We have considered defendant’s arguments and will affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2009, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing the victim’s death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) On direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Hill (Feb. 4, 2011, C063103) [nonpub. opn.].) We summarized the evidence from the trial, including that: the victim, Jack Lawrence, went to a donut shop the morning he was shot; defendant was seen as a passenger in a car that was driving slowly past, and making U-turns in front of, the donut shop; Lawrence was a member of a gang that defendant believed had shot at him in an earlier incident; a friend and fellow gang member warned Lawrence that defendant was in the vicinity; and as the friend was leaving a nearby store, the friend heard three shots and both he and Lawrence ran. The friend looked back and saw that the shooter was defendant. Lawrence was shot in the chest and collapsed and died later that day. In February 2022, and again in April 2022, defendant filed petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6. In the petitions, he alleged his conviction was based on felony murder and murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and he could not now be convicted because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019. The parties submitted briefing. The People attached the instructions given to the jury at trial and argued defendant could not have been convicted under any of the relevant theories, because the jury was not instructed on any of them. The People further argued the jury found true that defendant personally used a gun, and therefore defendant was not convicted under a natural and probable consequences theory, which is vicarious.