Court Opinion

ID: 9369412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 19:02:07.206591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.853792
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/8/23 P. v. Ervin CA2/8
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                     B309740

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. NA090280)
         v.

FRANK ERVIN et al.,

         Defendants and Appellants.

      APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. James D. Otto, Judge. Reversed and remanded
with directions.
      Matthew Alger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant Frank Ervin.
      Susan K. Shaler, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Shawn Verrette.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez, Charles S. Lee and David E.
Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                            **********
       Defendants and appellants Frank Ervin and Shawn
Verrette are each serving a life sentence without the possibility of
parole for the special circumstance murder and robbery of
Franklin Robles. Defendants appeal from the orders denying
their respective petitions for resentencing pursuant to Penal
Code section 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95). During the pendency of
this appeal, former section 1170.95 was renumbered as
section 1172.6 with no change in the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58,
§ 10.) We refer to the statute only by its new designation for
clarity.
       We reverse both orders denying defendants’ petitions and
remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings
pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.
                           BACKGROUND
       Ervin, Verrette and a third defendant, Luis Orozco, were
charged with the 2010 special circumstance murder of Franklin
Robles. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17);
count 1.) They were also charged with robbery (§ 211; count 2),
residential burglary (§ 459; count 3) and conspiracy to commit a
crime (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 4). Various firearm use and prior
conviction allegations were also alleged. Orozco is not a party to
this appeal.
       The first joint trial of Ervin, Verrette and Orozco resulted
in a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The retrial proceeded in
October 2015. The jury found all three defendants guilty of
murder, robbery and conspiracy to commit a crime and found true
the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation and various
firearm use allegations.

                                 2
       In December 2018, we affirmed defendants’ convictions
after modifying Ervin’s and Verrette’s respective sentences to
reflect imposition of only one life term on count 1 and remanding
for resentencing in light of the passage of Senate Bills 620 and
1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) during the pendency of that appeal.
(People v. Orozco (Dec. 14, 2018, B276130) [nonpub. opn.].)
       That same year, Senate Bill 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.)
was passed, amending the law regarding felony murder and the
natural and probable consequences doctrine. Both Ervin and
Verrette filed petitions requesting resentencing pursuant to
Penal Code section 1172.6, a statute enacted as part of the
legislative changes effected by Senate Bill 1437. (Stats. 2018,
ch. 1015, § 4.)
       In November 2020, the same judge who had presided over
the 2015 retrial issued an order summarily denying both
petitions. The court found that neither Verrette nor Ervin had
demonstrated a prima facie case for relief, basing its decision in
part on the fact the jury had found true the felony-murder
special-circumstance allegation.
       Defendants appealed. We affirmed the denial of
defendants’ petitions. (People v. Ervin (Feb. 25, 2022, B309740)
[nonpub. opn.].) At that time, there was a split in the Courts of
Appeal as to whether a jury’s true finding on a special
circumstance allegation pursuant to Penal Code section 190.2
precluded resentencing relief under section 1172.6. In affirming
the trial court’s denial, we said that pending further guidance
from the Supreme Court, we would follow those cases concluding
a true finding did preclude relief and that a defendant’s remedy
was to pursue relief by way of habeas corpus.

                                3
       Defendants sought and were granted review by the
Supreme Court. In August 2022, the Supreme Court issued its
decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong).
Thereafter, the Supreme Court transferred this case to us with
directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the matter in
light of Strong. In supplemental briefing to this court, the parties
agree that remand is warranted to allow the trial court to
conduct an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Penal Code
section 1172.6.
       Having vacated our prior decision and reconsidered the
issues presented in light of Strong, we reverse and remand with
directions to the superior court to issue an order to show cause
and conduct further proceedings in accordance with Penal Code
section 1172.6, subdivision (d).
                           DISCUSSION
       The Supreme Court explained in Strong that its decisions
in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark
(2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, “both substantially clarified the law
governing findings under Penal Code section 190.2,
subdivision (d): Banks elucidated what it means to be a major
participant and, to a lesser extent, what it means to act with
reckless indifference to human life, while Clark further refined
the reckless indifference inquiry.” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at
pp. 706–707.) As a result, Strong concluded that “[f]indings
issued by a jury before Banks and Clark do not preclude a
defendant from making out a prima facie case for relief under
Senate Bill 1437. This is true even if the trial evidence would
have been sufficient to support the findings under Banks and
Clark.” (Strong, at p. 710.)

                                 4
       Here, the jury convicted defendants of murder and made its
true findings on the robbery-murder special-circumstance
allegation in October 2015, shortly after Banks was issued and
several months before Clark was decided. The People concede
that remand is appropriate in light of the Supreme Court’s
discussion and holding in Strong.
       We agree. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of
both defendants’ resentencing petitions and remand for further
proceedings pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.
                          DISPOSITION
       The orders denying defendants and appellants Frank
Ervin’s and Shawn Verrette’s respective petitions for
resentencing are reversed and the case remanded to the superior
court. On remand, the superior court is directed to issue an order
to show cause and conduct further proceedings in accordance
with Penal Code section 1172.6, subdivision (d).

                              GRIMES, Acting P. J.

      WE CONCUR:

                        WILEY, J.

                        VIRAMONTES, J.

                                5