California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
[257
Cal.Rptr.3d 266] APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Ricardo R. Ocampo, Judge. Affirmed.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA117431)
Page 1129
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 1130
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 1131
COUNSEL
Robert
Bacon, Oakland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier
Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and Idan Ivri, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
ROTHSCHILD,
P. J.
Page 1132
[257
Cal.Rptr.3d 267] A jury convicted defendant Vincent E. Lewis
of first degree premeditated murder in 2012, and we affirmed
the conviction in 2014.
Page 1133
(People v. Lewis (July 14, 2014, B241236) 2014 WL
3405846 [nonpub. opn.] (Lewis ).)[1] In January
2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal
Code [2] section 1170.95 and requested the
appointment of counsel. The trial court, relying on our prior
decision in Lewis, found that defendant was
ineligible for relief and denied the petition without
appointing counsel or holding a hearing. Defendant appealed.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant
and two codefendants were tried for the murder of a fellow
gang member. One of the codefendants allegedly fired the
shots that killed the victim. The People prosecuted the case
against defendant on three alternative first degree murder
theories: direct aiding and abetting; aiding and abetting
under the natural and probable consequences doctrine;
[3]
and conspiracy. The prosecutor argued to the jurors that the
evidence could support a verdict under each murder theory and
that they did not have to agree on the same theory to return
a guilty verdict. The court instructed the jury on each of
the prosecutions theories. The jury convicted defendant of
first degree premeditated murder in a general verdict and
made no findings that indicate which murder theory it relied
upon. The court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life.
In his
direct appeal, defendant asserted that the court erred by
instructing the jury that it could find him guilty of
premeditated first degree murder based on the natural and
probable consequences doctrine. The argument had merit. While
his appeal was pending, our Supreme Court decided People
v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325
P.3d 972 (Chiu ), which held that "an aider and
abettor may not be convicted of first degree
premeditated murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. Rather, his or her liability for that
crime must be based on direct aiding and abetting
principles." (Id. at pp. 158-159, 172
...