People v. Bates CA2/4

Filed 1/17/24 P. v. Bates CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B327277

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA450278)

v.

PRENTISS BATES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen A. Marcus, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Yanis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Prentiss Bates appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and appellant filed a supplemental brief. We review the contentions appellant raises in his supplemental brief and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts presented at appellant’s trial are discussed in detail in this court’s prior nonpublished opinion, People v. Brown (Nov. 26, 2019, B287726). We briefly discuss them here to provide context for the trial court’s ruling. We otherwise do not rely on this factual background in resolving the issues presented in this appeal. (See § 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).) The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged appellant, along with four co-defendants, with the first degree murder of Trevon Lark (§ 187, subd. (a); count one), conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count two), and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count three). The information also included firearm enhancement allegations (§ 12022.53; counts one and two) and gang enhancement allegations (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1)(B) & (C); count three). The information further alleged prior serious felony and strike convictions for appellant under section 667, subdivisions (a)(1) and (b)-(j), respectively. The prosecution presented evidence at trial that appellant, his co-defendants, and the victim were all members of the Hoover gang. In the early hours of August 29, 2015, the group attended a party at a marijuana dispensary in Los Angeles. Two of the co-