People v. Young CA3

Filed 1/29/24 P. v. Young CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C098390

v. (Super. Ct. No. 95F03250)

BANQUO DEBLESIO YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1999, a jury convicted defendant Banquo Deblesio Young of first degree murder. In 2022, defendant petitioned the trial court for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6,1 contending he had been convicted under an abrogated theory of murder. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage. Defendant appeals from the denial of his petition, arguing the record of conviction does not conclusively preclude his eligibility for resentencing. Because defendant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law, we will affirm the trial court’s order denying the petition for resentencing.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND The facts of the offenses are set forth in our prior opinion from defendant’s direct appeal. (See People v. Young (Nov. 30, 2001, C033911) [nonpub. opn.].) As relevant here, in 1994, shots were fired at six men while they were riding in a car. A bullet struck one passenger in the head, killing him; a second passenger was hit but survived. (Ibid.) The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), assault with a firearm (as a lesser offense included in a charge of attempted murder) (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246). As to the murder charge, the jury found not true an allegation that defendant personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison for the murder conviction and two years eight months for the other offenses. The only theory of first degree murder set forth in the jury instructions was for a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing with express malice aforethought. The trial court instructed the jury on three theories of second degree murder: (1) express malice murder without deliberation and premeditation; (2) implied malice murder; and (3) felony murder. The trial court did not provide any instructions on aiding and abetting liability or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. As to the offense of assault with a firearm, the trial court instructed the jury that, in order to prove this crime, it must be proved that “[t]he assault was committed with a firearm.” And as the offense of shooting at an occupied vehicle, the jury was instructed that, in order to prove this crime, it must be proved that “[a] person unlawfully discharged a firearm at an occupied vehicle” and that the “discharge of the firearm was willful and malicious.” In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court denied defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage, explaining that defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because “the jury’s verdict of first degree murder could only be arrived [at] under a still valid theory of liability.”