People v. Lee CA3

Filed 7/1/24 P. v. Lee CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098428

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR56910)

v.

DARREN LEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant Darren Lee’s petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6),1 finding that the prosecutor had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant could be convicted of two counts of murder on still-valid theories. While this is not defendant’s first appeal as of right, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to independently review the record to

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. Defendant originally filed his petition under former section 1170.95, which has since been amended by Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2022 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2), and then renumbered to section 1172.6 effective June 30, 2022. (See Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For clarity, we refer to section 1172.6 throughout the opinion.

1

determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Defendant filed a supplemental brief noting his young age when the crimes were committed and arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show he was present when the victims were killed. Having considered defendant’s supplemental brief in accordance with People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we affirm. BACKGROUND One night in June 1979 when defendant was 16 years old, he and three men, including Marty Jackson (also known as Spears), conducted a violent home invasion robbery in Newman, which defendant had planned. He was familiar with the house, drew a map of where guns and a safe would be located, and suggested they bring weapons with them. The group entered by a ruse that their car had run out of gas. Once inside, Jackson hog-tied the occupant’s ankles and hands together behind his back and another man hit him on the head multiple times with a firearm. During the robbery, Jackson threatened to kill the occupant because he had seen Jackson’s face, but the others told him not to do it. They stole a safe, firearms, and a knife. The next night, Jackson planned a home invasion robbery of a residence in Modesto that he believed had large amounts of cash. The murder victims -- a husband and wife -- lived in the home. Defendant, Jackson, and two others participated in the robbery. Defendant and Jackson were armed with the guns and a knife stolen during the Newman robbery. They used the same ruse to gain entry. The husband, who had offered to get them gas from the garage, was hog-tied and beaten in the garage. Defendant’s fingerprints were found on a car in the garage and his hair was found on the rope used to tie the husband. Defendant said Jackson hit the husband with a baseball bat, which he described as sounding like “hitting the concrete.” Jackson then went into the house and ordered the wife upstairs to the master bedroom at gunpoint, and defendant followed. Defendant admitted taking diamond jewelry and money from upstairs in the bathroom and said he saw Jackson hog-tie the wife. He heard the wife yell, “no, please don’t do