Filed 2/14/22 P. v. Dicks CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERIC DICKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B312600

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. A776772)

THE COURT:

Eric Dicks challenges an order summarily denying his 

petition to be resentenced. (Pen. Code, § 1170.95.)

1

Dicks was convicted by jury in 1987 of two counts of first 

degree murder. The jury found he personally used a rifle and 

committed more than one murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

subd. (a)(3), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5.) The court denied 

Dicks’s motion to strike the multiple murder special circumstance 

and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of 

parole.

This court affirmed the judgment in People v. Dicks (Feb. 4, 

1993, B031281) [nonpub. opn.]. We wrote that Dicks and two 

fellow gang members, all armed, went to the home of a rival

gangster on September 11, 1985. They knocked on the door, 

opened fire on a youngster who answered, then entered the home 

and repeatedly shot the boy’s mother. The child was killed by a 

.38-caliber weapon fired by Dicks’s codefendant; Dicks’s .30-.30-

caliber rifle could have caused one of the mother’s fatal wounds. 

The probation report shows that Dicks was 18 years old at the 

time of the murders.

In 2021, Dicks petitioned to be resentenced. (§ 1170.95.) 

The trial court summarily denied his petition without appointing 

counsel. Citing our 1993 opinion, the court found Dicks “was the 

actual killer and was convicted of murder on a theory of being the 

direct perpetrator and not on a theory of felony murder of any 

degree, or a theory of natural and probable consequences.” Dicks

appealed. (§ 1237, subd. (b).)

We appointed counsel to represent Dicks in his appeal. 

After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising 

no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–443.) We 

advised Dicks that he could personally submit any contentions or 

issues that he wished to raise on appeal. He did not submit a 

supplemental brief.

We are unable to conduct a proper review because the 

superior court lost the resentencing petition, through no fault of 

appellant. Absent a complete record, we do not know if Dicks’s 
3

petition was facially compliant or whether he requested the 

appointment of counsel. (§ 1170.95, subds. (a), (b)(1)(C); People v. 

Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967–970.)

We reverse the summary denial of Dicks’s petition and 

remand the case with directions to appoint counsel for Dicks to 

assist him in filing a new petition under section 1170.95 and to 

make any colorable claim for relief he might wish to raise.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

 LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.