People v. Sawyer CA4/3

Filed 6/10/24 P. v. Sawyer CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062544

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF143836)

JASON LEE SAWYER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Thomas Kelly, and Helios J. Hernandez (retired judges of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.), Judges. Reversed and remanded. Request for judicial notice denied. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Lynn G. McGinnis and Stephanie A. Mitchell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In 2009, defendant Jason Lee Sawyer was convicted of one count each of 1 conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a)), attempted premeditated and deliberate murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). He was ultimately sentenced to 75 years to life in state prison. In 2022, Sawyer filed a petition under section 1172.6 for resentencing. Counsel was appointed. No further briefing was filed. During the hearing on the prima facie sufficiency of the petition, pursuant to an oral motion by the prosecution, the trial court denied the petition without stating its reasons. The Attorney General concedes the court did not comply with the procedural requirements of the resentencing statute, but argues any error was harmless because Sawyer was not eligible for resentencing in any event. Sawyer argues that this court should not look any further than the trial court’s lack of compliance with the procedural requirements of section 1172.6, and urges we reverse and remand without further analysis. While the harmless error rule applies to section 1172.6 petitions where the trial court made procedural errors, we decline the Attorney General’s request to take judicial notice of court records the trial court never considered. Without a review of those records, we cannot conclude the error was harmless. We therefore reverse and remand the matter to the trial court to conduct a new prima facie hearing to determine if Sawyer has met the low bar of a prima facie case under section 1172.6, and if so, issue an order to show cause.