People v. Turner CA2/5

Filed 7/3/24 P. v. Turner CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B333268

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA179907) v.

MOSES LEE TURNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed. Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Moses Lee Turner appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 We affirm. On May 18, 2001, a jury convicted defendant of one count of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211). For the murder count, the jury found true the allegations that a principal was armed with a firearm (§12022, subd. (a)(1)), and that defendant committed the murder while engaged in the commission of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). The jury also found true the allegation that for each robbery, a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). On December 16, 2002, a panel of this division affirmed defendant’s conviction. (People v. Turner (Dec. 16, 2002, B152074 [nonpub. opn.] (Turner I).) On February 7, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. Defendant checked a number of boxes on a preprinted petition indicating, among other things, that he had been convicted of first or second degree murder at trial under a felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine; that he was not the actual killer; and that he requested the appointment of counsel. He further attached a memorandum of points and authorities that challenged his underlying conviction on the grounds that: the photographic display was unduly suggestive; the trial court erred