People v. King CA1/5

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. King CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166153 v. AARON CHRISTOPHER KING, (Humboldt County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CR1601245)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Aaron Christopher King filed a facially sufficient petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95, but the trial court denied the petition without appointing counsel, inviting briefing, or holding a hearing.1 On appeal, the parties agree—as do we—that the court erred. We reverse and remand. In 2016, the prosecution charged defendant with five felonies: attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (count 1); attempted second degree robbery (count 2); assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count 3); possession of a firearm by a felon (count 4); and first degree

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion.(Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. In June 2022, former section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6. We refer to the statute by its current number.

1

residential burglary (count 5). The prosecution also alleged firearm enhancements as to counts 1, 2, and 3. In 2018, defendant pleaded guilty to amended count 1— nonpremeditated attempted murder, described by the court as “[a]ttempted second degree” murder—and counts 2 and 5. He admitted the firearm enhancement attached to count 1 (§ 12022.53) and a modified firearm enhancement attached to count 2 (§ 12022.5). The parties agreed the preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual basis for the plea. The trial court dismissed counts 3 and 4 and the firearm enhancement attached to count 3; the court sentenced defendant to prison.2 In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. He stated the prosecution charged him with attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; that he pleaded guilty to attempted murder because he believed he could have been convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; and that he could not now be convicted of attempted murder in light of changes to sections 188 and 189. He asked the trial court to appoint counsel to represent him in connection with the petition. Four days later—and without appointing counsel, inviting briefing, or holding a hearing—the court summarily denied the petition. In a conclusory written order, the court stated it had considered defendant’s petition and determined he was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. Defendant appealed.