Court Opinion

ID: 9867797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 17:04:36.795211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:11.073301
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/25/23 P. v. Pitney CA1/3
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A167397
 v.
 PHILLIP PITNEY,                                                        (City & County of San Francisco
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. SCN 209488)
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
         Phillip Pitney appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing
under former Penal Code section 1170.95.1 We affirm.
         In 2009, Pitney was charged with attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a),
664) (count one), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b))
(count two), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22,
subd. (a)) (count three). The jury convicted him of those crimes and also
found true various sentencing enhancement allegations. With respect to
counts one and two, firearm use, great bodily injury, and criminal street gang

         1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion.    (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.) Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to
section 1172.6, with no substantive changes in the statute. (Stats. 2022,
ch. 58, § 10.) We cite to section 1172.6 for ease of reference.

                                                               1
sentence enhancement allegations were found true. (§§ 186.22, subd.
(b)(1)(C), 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (b), 12022.53, subd. (d).) As to
count three, the jury found true firearm use and great bodily injury sentence
enhancement allegations. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a).) The jury
also found true allegations that all counts were committed while Pitney was
on bail. (§ 12022.1.)
      The trial court sentenced Pitney to an aggregate sentence of 40 years to
life — 15 years to life on count one, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life
for the personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily
injury enhancement. The court imposed and stayed determinate sentences
and related enhancements on the other two counts. On appeal, this court
reversed Pitney’s conviction on count three and the related enhancement
(and remanded to correct sentencing errors), but otherwise affirmed. (People
v. Pitney (Mar. 6, 2013, A128127 [nonpub. opn.].)2
      In January 2022, Pitney petitioned for resentencing under section
1172.6. The trial court determined Pitney had stated a prima facie case for
relief and appointed counsel. Ultimately, however, the court determined
Pitney was not eligible for resentencing and denied the petition. The court
concluded Pitney was the lone perpetrator of the attempted murder, aiming
his firearm at and shooting the victim. The court — the same judge who
presided over Pitney’s trial — observed the jury was not instructed on aiding
and abetting or the natural and probable consequences theory. Regarding
Pitney’s theory of mistaken identity, the court noted the jury had found
Pitney was the shooter; moreover, “[e]ven as an independent fact finder,” the
court resolved “the identification issue” against Pitney. It concluded there

      2 Pitney asks that we take judicial notice of our appellate record.   We
grant the request. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

                                        2
was no “doubt . . . that [Pitney] was the individual who perpetrated the crime
against [the victim]” and the court found “the People have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that [Pitney] is guilty of attempted murder under California
law” as recently amended.
      Pitney appealed. His appointed counsel filed a brief identifying no
arguable issues and requesting that we conduct an independent review of the
record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Pitney filed a
supplemental letter brief. After evaluating Pitney’s arguments, we affirm.
      Pitney is not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The jury
was not instructed on aiding and abetting or the natural and probable
consequences theory. Rather, in convicting him of attempted murder, the
jury rejected Pitney’s identification defense and found he acted on his own,
aiming his firearm at and shooting the victim. The jury also found true
allegations that Pitney personally and intentionally discharged a firearm
causing great bodily injury, further demonstrating the jury’s conclusion
Pitney was the shooter. After considering the evidence presented at the
section 1172.6 hearing, the trial court reached the same conclusion beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court properly denied the petition for
resentencing.
                               DISPOSITION
      The order denying Pitney’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

                                       3
                                _________________________
                                Rodríguez, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Tucher, P. J.

_________________________
Fujisaki, J.

A167397

                            4