Court Opinion

ID: 9928442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 19:03:12.157881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:59.299561
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/31/24 P. v. Collins 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                C097996

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 10F07391)

           v.

    LATICE COLLINS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Latice Collins appeals the trial court’s denial of his resentencing
petition under Penal Code1 section 1172.62 after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant

1        All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
2      Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was recodified without
substantive change to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Defendant filed his
petition under former section 1170.95, but we will refer to the current section 1172.6
throughout this opinion.

                                                             1
argues there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s order. We disagree and
affirm.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          Defendant and Nathaniel Carter were charged with the robbery and murder of
Steven C. Before trial, defendant pled guilty to first degree murder and received a
sentence of 26 years to life with the possibility of parole. Defendant later petitioned for
resentencing under section 1172.6. Following defendant’s first evidentiary hearing, the
trial court denied the petition. (People v. Collins (Jan. 6, 2022, C093514) [nonpub.
opn.].) We reversed the denial because the trial court applied the wrong standard of
review. (Ibid.) At defendant’s second evidentiary hearing, the order that is the subject of
this appeal, the prosecution introduced transcripts from Carter’s trial and transcripts from
defendant’s first evidentiary hearing. Defendant called S.C., one of the witnesses from
Carter’s trial, to testify on his behalf. The following facts were revealed by the evidence
admitted at defendant’s second evidentiary hearing.
          Steven was a cannabis dealer in Sacramento. About three months before his
murder, Steven befriended Danisha H. Danisha and her friend Kayla T. would often
obtain cannabis from Steven.
          On the night of October 29, 2010, Kayla and Danisha decided they wanted
cannabis. Danisha called Steven and made plans to meet him at a grocery store parking
lot. Kayla and Danisha ran into defendant, defendant’s girlfriend Dejohng Taylor, and
Carter, who were getting out of Taylor’s car. According to Kayla, Carter and defendant
were excited and taking bandanas off their faces. Based on their conversation, both
Danisha and Kayla believed Carter and defendant had just committed or were planning to
commit a robbery. Defendant and Carter approached and asked Danisha if she would
help them rob Steven. Defendant encouraged her to help. Carter told Danisha and Kayla
the plan, which included that Danisha would distract Steven and that Carter would then
push Danisha out of the way to rob Steven.

                                              2
       Defendant, Carter, and Taylor then left in Taylor’s car and drove to the grocery
store parking lot where Danisha had agreed to meet Steven. Danisha decided not to help
with the robbery, but instead went to the parking lot with Kayla to try to warn Steven.
Kayla saw Steven’s white truck parked in the lot and Taylor park her car right behind
Steven’s truck. Both Kayla and Danisha saw defendant and Carter approach Steven’s
truck. Defendant approached on the passenger side, while Carter approached on the
driver’s side of the truck. Danisha screamed Steven’s name to warn him.
       At this point S.C., who was driving down the street by the parking lot, saw Carter
pull something out of his pocket as he approached Steven’s driver’s side window. S.C.
and Kayla saw a struggle ensue. Kayla saw defendant with his arm inside Steven’s truck.
Steven’s truck began to reverse, and Kayla and Danisha heard a gunshot or two.
       Steven’s truck crashed into Taylor’s car, careened into the street, and crashed into
a building across the street. Kayla saw defendant run away and Carter get back into the
car with Taylor before driving away. After driving past the incident, S.C. turned around
to see what had happened, but left when she saw officers crowding the scene. She later
called the sheriff’s department to give a statement.
       Steven died from a gunshot wound. Steven also had a cut on the right side of his
head that was consistent with a knife rather than a car accident. Small knives were found
on the passenger side of the truck. Danisha testified defendant threatened her against
cooperating with the investigation; Kayla testified that she also received threats but did
not identify who threatened her.
       There were some discrepancies between Danisha’s testimony at Carter’s trial and
her testimony at defendant’s first evidentiary hearing. At the first evidentiary hearing,
Danisha remembered little of her prior statements, though she affirmed those prior
statements were truthful. The prosecution used her prior testimony to refresh her
recollection, but she still did not remember her statements independently from the
transcripts.

                                             3
       Kayla recalled more of her prior testimony at defendant’s first evidentiary hearing
than Danisha. Some of her prior testimony, however, was inconsistent with her
testimony at defendant’s first evidentiary hearing. At Carter’s trial, Kayla testified she
saw Carter with the gun he used to kill Steven before the night of the murder; at the
evidentiary hearing she could not remember seeing Carter with the gun before the night
of the murder. She also testified at Carter’s trial that she saw defendant wielding a gun
during the robbery. At the evidentiary hearing, however, Kayla could not recall ever
seeing defendant with a gun. After reviewing her previous testimony Kayla recalled
seeing defendant with a gun. Kayla also affirmed her previous testimony at Carter’s trial
was accurate.
       Defendant testified at his first evidentiary hearing. He was confronted with a text
message he sent to Taylor the day before the murder where he said that he needed money,
“unless that lick we got planned goes right.” He testified that a “lick” could mean a
robbery but that is not what he meant when he sent the text message. Defendant provided
no alternative explanation for what he meant in the text message.
       Defendant also testified that on the day of the murder he visited Taylor. He said
that he had never committed a robbery before that day and did not own a gun. Defendant
said he and Taylor picked up Carter in Taylor’s car. In the car, defendant and Carter
discussed stealing cannabis from someone because they did not have the money to buy
cannabis. Defendant said it was Carter’s idea to steal cannabis. Defendant explained that
they did not plan to steal specifically from Steven until they met Danisha and Kayla, who
told the two men where to find Steven. Defendant said there was no plan to rob Steven
beyond going to the parking lot, taking the cannabis, and running away. Defendant did
not believe Steven would resist but was prepared to take the cannabis against Steven’s
will. Defendant said there was no plan to use fear or force to make Steven give them the
cannabis.

                                              4
       Defendant testified that Carter directed them to the parking lot and told them
where to park. Carter got out of the car and approached the driver’s side window.
Defendant testified that he yelled “[w]hat the fuck are you doing?” at Carter when Carter
approached the truck while Danisha and Kayla were still across the street. Defendant
said that he still got out of Taylor’s car and approached Steven’s passenger side window.
Defendant said he could not put his hand into the truck because the window was closed.
Defendant further claimed he did not know that Carter had a gun until Carter pointed the
gun at Steven. Defendant testified that when Carter reached Steven’s window, he
demanded everything Steven had and shot immediately in one motion. Defendant said he
took off running immediately after the gunshot because he was shocked.
       Defendant acknowledged that armed robbery is a dangerous activity that could
result in someone dying. Defendant testified that when he ran away from the scene, he
thought Carter had shot Steven. Defendant stated that as he fled the scene he was not
concerned with Steven’s life. He also admitted to lying to the police afterwards because
he was afraid of going to prison for robbery. He denied threatening any witnesses over
their cooperation with the investigation into Steven’s murder.
       The trial court found that defendant’s testimony was an attempt to minimize his
role in planning and participating in the crime. The court found that the text message
containing the term “lick” was an example of defendant’s lack of credibility, especially
given Kayla’s testimony that defendant appeared to have committed a robbery before
hatching the plan to rob Steven. The trial court credited the stories of Kayla and S.C. that
an extended altercation occurred, rather than defendant’s story that Carter demanded
Steven’s money and shot Steven all in the same motion. The court found that the cut and
bruises on Steven’s body also supported S.C.’s and Kayla’s versions of events. The trial
court found that defendant was a major participant in the crime and that he acted with
reckless indifference to human life. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant’s
petition for resentencing.

                                             5
       Defendant appeals.
                                        DISCUSSION
       To convict defendant of felony murder the trial court was required to find beyond
a reasonable doubt that defendant was a major participant in the robbery and that he acted
with reckless indifference to human life. (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 800-
801.) Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support these findings.
       We review for substantial evidence. (People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27,
41-43.) Thus, we consider the entire record in a light favorable to the judgment to
determine “whether the evidence is such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919,
932; see People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298.) We reassess neither the
evidence nor the credibility of witnesses. (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616,
638.) If the record reasonably justifies the trial court’s findings, we must affirm the
conviction. (Id. at p. 639.)
                                               I
                               Defendant Was A Major Participant
       To determine whether a defendant was a major participant in a robbery, a court
considers the following factors: (1) The defendant’s role in planning the crime that led to
the death; (2) the defendant’s use, knowledge, or production of the weapons used in that
crime; (3) the defendant’s awareness of the dangerousness of the crime or of the violent
tendencies of his, her, or their accomplice; (4) the defendant’s presence at the scene of
the killing, role in the death, and opportunity to prevent it; and (5) the defendant’s actions
after lethal force was used. (People v. Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 803.) Defendant
argues the evidence was insufficient to show that he was a major participant in the
robbery. We disagree.
       The evidence revealed that defendant and Carter planned to rob Steven for his
cannabis. The day before the robbery, defendant texted Taylor, who drove defendant and

                                              6
Carter to the scene of the robbery, about a “lick” he had planned. Defendant
acknowledged that lick could refer to a robbery and did not offer an alternative
explanation for this text message. Kayla and Danisha also testified that defendant and
Carter appeared to have just planned or completed a robbery before urging them to assist
in the robbery of Steven. It is undisputed that defendant was present at the scene of the
robbery. Kayla testified at defendant’s first evidentiary hearing that she saw defendant
with a gun and at Carter’s trial that she saw defendant struggling with Steven before he
was killed. Finally, defendant fled the scene of the shooting without thought to Steven’s
well-being in the moments after he was shot. Given defendant’s prior planning activity,
possession of a gun during the crime, attack of the victim before Carter shot him, and
flight after the shooting, there was substantial evidence to support a finding that
defendant was a major participant in the robbery that led to Steven’s death.
       Defendant disagrees. He argues that he was not a major participant because he
was not instrumental in planning the robbery and the robbery was quick, impulsive, and
unsophisticated. The evidence, however, revealed that defendant and Carter discussed
stealing cannabis before they met Danisha and Kayla, and that defendant had been
planning a robbery for at least one day prior to committing one against Steven. Further,
defendant urged Danisha and Kayla to participate in the robbery, and then during the
robbery, took an active role in taking the cannabis and attacking Steven. Thus, there was
evidence in the record showing that defendant planned the robbery and his participation
was more than peripheral.
       Defendant argues that Carter unilaterally deviated from the “snatch and grab” plan
by demanding everything Steven had, while defendant questioned his actions, and that
this conduct shows defendant did not plan the criminal enterprise that led to Steven’s
death. The trial court, however, did not credit defendant’s testimony. The trial court
found that defendant’s testimony was not credible given his attempts to minimize his
involvement in the robbery. Further, the trial court noted that the autopsy supported the

                                              7
testimony of S.C. and Kayla, that a struggle occurred before Carter shot Steven. The
evidence suggested defendant participated in this struggle because of the cut on the right
side of Steven’s face—the side of his face that faced the passenger side of his truck,
where defendant stood. Thus, the trial court’s finding that defendant’s testimony
regarding his participation in the robbery was not credible was supported by substantial
evidence.
       Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence that he was in a position to
stop the shooting or that he played any role in Steven’s death. He also argues that the
record clearly indicates he could not have aided Steven because Steven drove away after
he was shot. The trial court, however, found that the evidence of a cut and bruises on
Steven’s body supported an inference that defendant assaulted Steven before his death.
Thus, instead of acting to prevent Steven’s death, defendant participated in the concerted
attack against Steven. Further, Steven crashed into a building across the street from the
parking lot where the robbery occurred. The fact that Steven drove away from the
parking lot is not significant as defendant would make it because defendant could have
simply crossed the street to aid Steven. Instead, defendant fled the scene. There was
substantial evidence that defendant was in a position to stop the shooting or render aid to
Steven and that his acts played a role in Steven’s death.
       Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to show he acted with intent to kill
or that he knew of Carter’s violent tendencies. We agree there was no evidence presented
showing defendant acted with an intent to kill or that defendant was aware of Carter’s
violent tendencies. Defendant’s intent and knowledge, however, are just two factors for
the trial court to consider. Considering the totality of the circumstances, there was
substantial evidence for the trial court to find that defendant was a major participant in
the robbery.

                                              8
                                              II
                        Defendant Acted With Reckless Indifference
       To determine whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life,
the trial court considers the following factors: (1) The defendant’s knowledge that
weapons would be used; (2) the defendant’s presence at the scene and ability to prevent
the death or help the victim; (3) whether the defendant restrained the victim for a
prolonged period; and (4) the defendant’s knowledge of his, her, or their accomplice’s
violent tendencies. (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618-623.) Defendant argues
there was insufficient evidence to show that he acted with reckless indifference to human
life. We disagree.
       The evidence revealed that defendant and Carter planned to rob Steven. There
was also evidence that defendant was armed with a gun and that defendant cut Steven
with a knife before he was shot. It is undisputed that defendant fled the scene as soon as
he heard Carter fire the shot and did not attempt to aid Steven. Further, there was
evidence that defendant lied to police regarding his involvement in the robbery and that
he threatened Danisha against cooperating with the investigation. Given defendant’s
involvement in the plan, his possession of a gun, his coordinated attack on Steven and
flight, and his subsequent threats to witnesses, there was sufficient evidence for the trial
court to find that defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life.
       Defendant disagrees, contending that his possession of a gun at the scene of the
crime does not show he had the expectation of killing Steven. While an expectation to
kill would likely demonstrate reckless indifference to human life, such an expectation is
not a required finding. Rather, the relevant factor is whether defendant possessed
weapons or knew his codefendant possessed weapons. (People v. Clark, supra,
63 Cal.4th at pp. 618-619.) Here, there was sufficient evidence to find defendant
possessed a weapon.

                                              9
       Defendant also argues that he could not have prevented Steven’s death because
Carter suddenly deviated from the plan, which did not include killing Steven. The
evidence, however, did not suggest that defendant tried to stop Carter when he
approached Steven’s truck before Danisha joined them to assist in the robbery as planned.
Contrary to defendant’s contention that he was powerless, S.C. and Kayla both saw
defendant approach Steven’s truck with Carter before Danisha arrived. Both witnesses
said there was a struggle; during that struggle, defendant did not attempt to stop Carter.
Thus, there was sufficient evidence to find defendant had the opportunity to stop Carter
or repudiate Carter’s actions, and that defendant did neither.
       Defendant suggests that his flight may be interpreted as a repudiation of Carter’s
act of shooting Steven. Defendant further argues that aiding Steven was impossible
because Steven drove away and that police arrived quickly on the scene. We are not
persuaded. Defendant fled before police arrived on the scene, so the arrival of police
says nothing of defendant’s mental state when he fled. More importantly, defendant
testified that he was only concerned with his own life when he fled. Thus, the evidence
supports the trial court’s implied finding that defendant was in a position to help Steven
and failed to do so.
       Defendant also suggests, citing In re Taylor (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 543, 559, that
there must be proof that he could have saved Steven’s life had he stayed on the scene.
We disagree. Taylor does not stand for the proposition that reckless indifference requires
the defendant to be in a position to save the victim’s life but fail to do so. (Id. at p. 559.)
Instead, the Taylor court weighed the defendant’s conduct with the other factors and
determined it was not so egregious as to justify a reckless indifference finding. (Ibid.)
Further, the defendant in Taylor was a getaway driver who did not directly participate in
the robbery. (Ibid.) Because of the defendant’s role as a getaway driver the evidence did
not suggest he knew the seriousness of the victim’s injuries. (Ibid.) This is not the case
here. Defendant testified that he knew Carter had shot Steven and that he only cared

                                              10
about his own life when he fled. For these reasons, defendant’s acts are evidence of his
reckless indifference to human life.
       Finally, defendant argues that the duration of the robbery and his lack of
knowledge of Carter’s violent tendencies prove he did not act with reckless indifference
to human life. We agree that the robbery was of short duration and there was no evidence
that defendant knew of Carter’s violent tendencies. Again, these are just two factors for
the trial court to consider. Given the totality of the circumstances, there was sufficient
evidence to find defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

/s/
WISEMAN, J.*

*      Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                             11