People v. Martinez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Nov 30, 2023 No. D081288Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the summary denial of the defendant's resentencing petition, holding that he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he was convicted as the direct perpetrator of the attempted murders rather than under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 without an evidentiary hearing.
Whether the defendant was convicted of attempted murder under a theory of natural and probable consequences.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Martinez is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law on count 1 because he was convicted of attempted murder.”

“The verdict forms conclusively establish—without fact finding or weighing of evidence—that Martinez was the one who attempted to murder R.C. using a motor vehicle.”

“Martinez was not convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; consequently, he is ineligible for resentencing relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.”

Filed 11/30/23 P. v. Martinez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081288

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS247733)

JAMES MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana Espana, Judge. Request for judicial notice granted. Affirmed. Sally Patrone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Alan L. Amann and Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant James Martinez appeals after the trial court summarily

denied his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95) without an evidentiary hearing. Because Martinez was not convicted on a theory for which section 1172.6 potentially affords relief, we affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Given the nature of this case, and the restrictions on the evidence that may be considered, a lengthy recitation of the facts is unnecessary. The People charged Martinez and codefendant Sean O’Neil with two counts of attempted murder. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a).) Count 1 involved the use of a firearm against the victim, R.R. As to count 2, the victim was a police officer and the attempted murder was allegedly accomplished by means of a motor vehicle. The second incident gave rise to three additional charges—assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, R.C. (§ 245, subd. (c), count 3), resisting an executive officer (§ 69, count 4), and evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 5). In 2012, a jury found both defendants guilty on all five counts with various enhancements. In 2012, Martinez and O’Neil appealed their convictions, asserting multiple errors. As to Martinez, this court ordered a 30-year parole eligibility

People v. Martinez CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081288

JAMES MARTINEZ,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

CASTILLO, J.

AI Brief