Court Opinion

ID: 9889228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 23:03:11.571606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:13.049150
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/6/23 P. v. Hymes CA2/5
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

    THE PEOPLE,                                               B324489

             Plaintiff and Respondent,                        (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. TA012237)
             v.

    LESTER HYMES,

             Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, Kelvin D. Filer, Judge. Affirmed.
         Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
       A jury convicted defendant and appellant Lester Hymes
(defendant) of willful, deliberate and premediated attempted
murder. Briefly stated, the evidence at trial proved defendant
attempted to rob the victim, and when the victim had no money,
assaulted him and shot him in the face. The trial court sentenced
defendant to life in prison plus a term of 14 years. Many years
later, defendant petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal
Code section 1172.6 (former Penal Code section 1170.95). The
trial court summarily denied the petition.
       Defendant’s appointed attorney in this appeal filed an
opening brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216. We ordered the record augmented with a copy of the jury
instructions from defendant’s trial, and the instructions reveal
the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. We also invited defendant to personally
submit a supplemental brief and he has done so, contending his
petition should have been granted and his sentenced reduced to
time served.
       The sole argument in defendant’s two-paragraph
supplemental brief appears to be the claim that there are
documents from his case which have been destroyed, and those
missing documents prevent him from establishing error in the
denial of his resentencing petition. Defendant, however, does not
identify the destroyed documents or explain why their absence
entitles him to relief. The point is inadequately developed (not to
mention inadequately substantiated) and forfeited for that
reason.
       Having considered and resolved defendant’s contention, we
shall affirm the order under review. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at 231-232.)

                                 2
                        DISPOSITION
      The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is
affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                      BAKER, Acting P.J.
We concur:

      MOOR, J.

      KIM, J.

                                3