California Court of Appeal Jun 11, 2024 No. E082785Unpublished
Filed 6/11/24 P. v. Wooten CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082785
v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF106959)
ISAIAH I. WOOTEN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Isaiah I. Wooten appeals the trial court’s postjudgment
order denying his petition for resentencing of his first degree attempted murder
independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an opportunity to file a
supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Because defendant’s counsel
filed a brief raising no issues and the defendant was notified by this court and his counsel
that failure to timely file a supplemental brief may result in the dismissal of the appeal as
abandoned and was given an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief but failed
to do so, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. (Id. at pp. 231-232.) However,
having exercised our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record, we
affirm the judgment. (Ibid.)
II. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2002, the victim was walking to a friend’s house in Lake
Elsinore when a car with three or four people inside drove toward him. As it passed by,
the person in the front passenger seat flashed gang signals and yelled “YPC.” (YPC is an
acronym for Yarborough Park Crips, a predominantly Black gang.) The same car drove
toward the victim from behind a second time, and the driver flashed gang signs and said
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 A summary of the factual background is taken from this court’s nonpublished opinion in defendant’s direct appeal, case No. E040555. (People v. Wooten (April 10, 2008, E040555) [nonpub. opn.] (Wooten I).)
2
YPC. After the victim walked a few more blocks, the same car drove toward the victim a
third time. This time, the front passenger leaned behind the driver and shot the victim in
the chest and abdomen with a shotgun. The victim suffered approximately 60 wounds
from shotgun pellets, and his lung had collapsed. (Wooten I, supra, E040555.)
The victim was positive the person who shot him was defendant. The victim
identified defendant as the shooter in a photo lineup of six people, including defendant.
At trial, the victim again identified defendant as the person who shot him. He testified
that he got a good look at the shooter because “‘we looked right at each other,’” and, “‘he
was the one holding the gun aimed at me.’” When asked how he could be so confident
about his identification, he responded, “‘[y]ou really don’t forget a person holding a[.]12-
gauge shotgun at you about ready to kill you. You don’t forget that.’” When asked why
he picked out the defendant’s photo in the photo lineup, he said, because “‘I saw the gun
and I saw the shooter,’” and “‘he’s the one who shot me.’” (Wooten I, supra, E040555.)
On November 19, 2002-four days after the shooting-D.S., a friend of defendant’s
and his associates, informed investigating gang unit deputies that defendant told D.S. that
he just “‘shot a Mexican,’” and “‘I shot an EYC.’” (EYC is an acronym for Elsinore
Young Classics, a predominately Hispanic gang.) Defendant also stated he shot the
victim in the stomach and watched him fall to the ground. Defendant was arrested later
that afternoon. (Wooten I, supra, E040555.)
A jury found defendant guilty of one count of attempted murder (§§ 664/187,
subd. (a), 664) and one count of discharging a firearm from a vehicle at another person
3
(§ 12034, subd. (c)). Additionally, the jury found true allegations that defendant
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury
(§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The court sentenced defendant to life with
the possibility of parole for the attempted murder conviction, plus a consecutive
indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the weapon enhancement. He was sentenced to
five years on the second count, which was stayed pursuant to section 654.
On April 10, 2008, this court affirmed defendant’s judgment in case No. E040555,
and ordered the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to correctly reflect the
court’s stay of the sentence on count 2. (Wooten I, supra, E040555.)
On January 9, 2023, defendant in pro per filed a form petition to vacate his
attempted murder conviction and seek resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. In his
petition, among others, he checked the box stating he could not presently be convicted of
murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019, and
requested appointment of counsel.
The trial court appointed counsel for defendant, and on May 25, 2023, appointed
counsel filed a motion indicating defendant had made a prima facie showing for
resentencing under section 1172.6. The People subsequently filed a request for judicial
notice of the complete jury instructions in defendant’s case, our unpublished opinion
4
from defendant’s direct appeal in case No. E040555, and defendant’s record of 3 conviction from the underlying case.
On September 6, 2023, defendant filed a petition to recall his sentence under
section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). The trial court summarily denied the request that same
day without appointing counsel.
On May 25, 2023, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a reply motion in support
of defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. Defense counsel argued that defendant had made
a prima facie showing as to the minimum requirements for resentencing under section
1172.6 and requested the court issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary
hearing. The reply motion included the jury instructions given to the jury, as well as the
jury instructions that were refused and withdrawn.
A hearing on the petition was held on December 8, 2023. The court noted that it
had received and reviewed defendant’s petition, briefs filed by the parties, and the jury
instructions. In connection with the attempted murder count, the jury was instructed
with, among other instructions, CALJIC No. 3.31.5 [Mental State]; CALJIC No. 8.66