People v. Thompson CA3

Filed 12/12/23 P. v. Thompson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097524

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE010736)

v.

RAFT LEE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Raft Lee Thompson “hit a man with a U-Haul truck multiple times, then drove the truck into a woman who was holding her baby, injuring both the man and the woman.” Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced him to 16 years plus 75 years to life in prison, and we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Thompson (Dec. 3, 2021, C088523) [nonpub. opn.].)

1

Defendant now appeals from the trial court’s denial of his May 2022 petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95, now 1172.6.1 Defendant’s counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. This court notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief raising numerous contentions. We focus on defendant’s section 1172.6 petition, as that is the order appealed from and the statute “does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility [for resentencing] on the basis of alleged trial error.” (People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438.) With that focus in mind, the trial court was correct that the instructions given here showed that the jury necessarily found defendant guilty of attempted murder under a valid theory, so defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We affirm.2

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) 2 Defendant’s contentions related to the 1172.6 petition are as follows: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying him “any meaningful relief”; and (2) we should reconsider the trial court’s denial of his requests for leniency. Defendant’s other contentions include but are not limited to the following: (1) No assault with a deadly weapon occurred because the truck stopped prior to touching the female victim, and defendant was unable to turn the truck toward the female victim; (2) The facts showed he acted in self-defense; (3) There is insufficient evidence he left the scene of the crime; (4) The victims’ testimony must be stricken; (5) He received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel erroneously stated during trial and sentencing that he drove into one of the victims; (6) His trial counsel inadequately questioned the female victim’s credibility and erroneously failed to call a potentially exonerating witness; (7) His trial counsel failed to adequately investigate the case, improperly rejected exonerating evidence, and erroneously failed to object to prejudicial prosecutorial statements; (8) The prosecutor lied and made racially insensitive comments; (9) The trial court was prejudiced against him and ignored that he had been assaulted by the male victim and was afraid of him; (10) The trial court imposed a more severe sentence because he is African American; (11) The trial court should have dismissed one or more of the counts and should have imposed probation; (12) the trial court abused its