People v. Lewis CA3

California Court of Appeal Jan 2, 2024 No. C097765Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court cannot summarily deny a Penal Code section 1172.6 petition based on a prior appellate sufficiency-of-the-evidence review of a special circumstance finding if the jury was not instructed on the Banks/Clark factors. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing because such prior findings do not preclude a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.

Issues

Whether a trial court may summarily deny a section 1172.6 petition based on a prior appellate sufficiency-of-the-evidence review of a special circumstance finding.
Whether a jury's special circumstance finding made without Banks/Clark instructions precludes a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“neither the jury’s true finding, nor our conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to support that finding, preclude defendant’s eligibility for relief as a matter of law.”

“a court determination that substantial evidence supports a homicide conviction is not a basis for denying resentencing after an evidentiary hearing.”

Filed 1/2/24 P. v. Lewis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097765

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFECOD20090005429, v. SF110732A)

JOEL LADON LEWIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In June 2017, a jury found defendant Joel Lewis guilty of first degree murder and found true a special circumstance that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery. This court affirmed that conviction in May 2021, finding, among other things, that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding on the special circumstance. (People v. Lewis (May 18, 2021, C085621) [nonpub. opn.] (Lewis).) Defendant later

petitioned the trial court for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Relying on our prior decision, the trial court denied the petition, finding defendant was precluded from relief as a matter of law. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred and he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We agree; we will reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings under section 1172.6, subdivision (d). BACKGROUND On January 22, 2009, the People charged defendant with first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) committed during the commission of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)), 10 counts of second degree robbery (§ 211), four counts of attempted murder with premeditation (§§ 187, 664), two counts of illegal possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (e)), negligent discharge of a firearm (§ 246), burglary (§ 459), and resisting arrest (§ 148). The People also alleged multiple firearm enhancements. (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b).) A jury found defendant guilty on most counts, including murder and the special circumstance allegation. In April 2015, this court reversed that judgment. In June 2017, a second jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder, two counts of robbery, one count of illegal possession of a firearm, and one count of resisting arrest. (Lewis, supra, C085621.) The jury also found true the robbery-murder special circumstance, though the trial court’s instructions on the special circumstance did not

People v. Lewis CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C097765

JOEL LADON LEWIS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief