People v. Standley CA1/4

Filed 10/26/23 P. v. Standley CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A162844 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. CAMERON STANDLEY, 20-CR-004678) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant, Cameron Standley, guilty of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and found true the allegation that he had personally used a firearm in the commission of that crime (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)). In this appeal, Standley asks us to do three things: (1) reverse his conviction for the trial court’s purported error in admitting certain evidence identifying Standley as the robber; (2) independently review the record of the in-camera proceedings on his Pitchess2 motion; and (3) remand his case for resentencing under the recently amended section 1170,

All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise noted. 2 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

1

subdivision (b). We affirm Standley’s conviction because he has shown no error in his trial and the record reveals no abuse of discretion in the Pitchess proceedings. However, we agree that Standley is entitled to a new sentencing hearing, so we remand the matter for that purpose. BACKGROUND On January 31, 2020, Edward Tyson and his fiancée were on their way home from a night at the casino when they stopped at a gas station. Working in concert with at least two other people, a man with dreadlocks robbed Tyson at gunpoint, taking his distinctive “Indian pendant” necklace. Police reviewed video surveillance footage of the crime, in which the gunman could be seen wearing a black beanie, distressed jeans, and Nike Air Force 1 sneakers. When Standley was arrested 18 hours after the robbery, he had dreadlocks, carried a black beanie, and wore distressed jeans that looked like the jeans in the footage, along with Nike Air Force 1 sneakers and Tyson’s Indian pendant necklace. The investigating officer, Oakland Police Officer Khem, prepared two series of six photographs in which each photograph depicted a different person. One of these “six-packs” included Standley. Another officer, Aguilar, used the six-packs to conduct a photographic lineup for Tyson on February 19, less than a month after the robbery. Before administering the lineup, Aguilar gave Tyson an admonition warning that “The person who committed the crime may or may not be included. . . . [Y]ou should not feel you have to make an identification.” However, Aguilar also told Tyson that Khem “probably already knows who they are,” and that “this is more of . . . a follow- up investigation.” The first six-pack contained a photograph of a man police suspected to be Standley’s accomplice in the robbery. It also included five “fillers,”