People v. Joyner CA3

Filed 10/31/23 P. v. Joyner CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C091224

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F07948)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

SEAN JOYNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Sean Joyner’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 Defendant’s original counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requesting

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. Although defendant filed his petition under former section 1170.95, we refer to the current section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

1

this court to review the record and determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a letter referring this court to a previously denied habeas corpus petition but did not file a supplemental brief. This court dismissed defendant’s appeal as abandoned. (People v. Joyner (Apr. 19, 2021, C091224) [nonpub. opn.].) Our Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and transferred the case back to us with directions to vacate our prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. We vacated our decision. Defendant then retained new counsel, to whom we granted extensions of time to file briefing. Defense counsel filed briefing arguing defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6 based on changes in the law while the case was pending. The People did not file any responsive briefing. After reviewing defendant’s arguments in light of intervening case law, we will reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings under section 1172.6. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND To facilitate our review, we will summarize the relevant background facts from our opinion in defendant’s previous appeal from the underlying conviction. (People v. Joyner (Oct. 25, 2013, C071202) [nonpub. opn.].)3 Defendant and codefendant Nicholas Newsome, both of whom were gang members, confronted the victim, a rival gang member, outside of a nightclub. The victim turned around and someone shot and killed him. Defendant later texted several incriminating messages to the mother of his son, although he would not tell her whether he was the shooter. (People v. Joyner, supra, C071202.)