People v. Edwards CA3

Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Edwards CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098225

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFECOD20150006708, v. SF131698A)

TRENTON PHILLIP EDWARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2018, defendant Trenton Phillip Edwards pleaded no contest to robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated); attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)); and admitted enhancements alleging that he used a firearm in the attempted murder (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and that he caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage of the proceedings.

1

Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Defendant filed his petition under former section 1170.95, but we will cite to the current section 1172.6. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred when it relied on the factual basis stated at the plea hearing to conclude he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder and therefore ineligible for resentencing. We affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS From the 10 substantive counts and various enhancements alleged in the information, defendant pleaded no contest to robbery (§ 211); attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)); and admitted enhancements that he used a firearm in the attempted murder (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and caused great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In exchange for his plea, the trial court agreed to sentence him to 16 years in prison. Defendant was the sole defendant identified in the information as to the attempted murder charge. At the request of the People, the trial court struck the language in the information defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation. During the plea colloquy, when the trial court asked for a factual basis for the plea, the prosecutor recited the following: “With regard to [the attempted murder], . . . on August 6th, . . . defendant did take a video game console by force and shot the victim, [S.M.], one time in the abdomen, inflicting a gunshot wound.” The court asked defense counsel if she concurred, and she responded that she did. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years. In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant, received briefing, and held a hearing. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the trial court denied the petition. The trial court found defense counsel, after consulting with defendant, stipulated to the factual basis for