People v. Ernst CA3

Filed 10/31/23 P. v. Ernst CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C096254

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF060001103) SCOTT KEITH ERNST,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Scott Keith Ernst appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition seeking relief under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6 without change to the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the current statute.

1

Defendant contends the trial court (1) should have applied section 1172.6 to his convictions for torture and attempted voluntary manslaughter, and (2) should have appointed counsel for him. Finding no merit in the contentions, we will affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND In 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted voluntary manslaughter, torture, first degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first degree robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, criminal threats, malicious disfigurement, second degree robbery, and carjacking. The trial court sentenced defendant to life in state prison for torture, plus 12 years four months in state prison for the remaining offenses. In 2022, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition. As relevant here, the petition alleged he could not presently be convicted of torture or attempted voluntary manslaughter2 due to changes in the law. Defendant requested the appointment of counsel and a hearing. The trial court determined the petition was facially deficient because neither of defendant’s convictions are eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel or holding a hearing. DISCUSSION I Defendant contends the trial court should have applied section 1172.6 to his convictions for torture and attempted voluntary manslaughter. He argues there is an overriding legislative purpose that permits courts to look beyond the language of the