People v. Johnson CA2/2 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/10/22 P. v. Johnson 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                   B307181
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. A778000)
    v.
    GARY JOHNSON,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Dismissed.
    Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
    Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
    Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy
    Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    ______________________________
    Defendant and appellant Gary Johnson (defendant) appeals
    from the July 24, 2020, summary denial of his petition for
    resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Because we
    have already ordered the trial court to conduct further
    proceedings under section 1170.95, subdivision (c), with respect
    to a substantively identical petition for resentencing filed by
    defendant, we can provide no effective relief to defendant through
    this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.2
    BACKGROUND3
    I. Conviction and Direct Appeal
    In 1987, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder
    (§ 187, subd. (a)), felonious assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), (2)), and
    several counts of residential robbery (former § 213.5). Defendant
    was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the
    murder, plus a determinate term of two years eight months for
    the other counts. We affirmed the judgment on direct appeal.
    (People v. Fulton (June 30, 1989), B028520 [nonpub. opn.], at
    p. 6.)
    II. First Petition for Resentencing and Appeal No. B307181
    On May 26, 2020, defendant filed a petition to be
    resentenced pursuant to section 1170.95 (first petition for
    1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
    unless otherwise indicated.
    2     We grant defendant’s April 4, 2022, motion to take judicial
    notice of various records of the trial court and the Court of Appeal
    related to this case. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
    3     Because the facts underlying defendant’s murder conviction
    are not relevant to our dismissal, we omit them from this
    summary.
    2
    resentencing). On July 24, 2020, the trial court summarily
    denied the first petition for resentencing on the ground that
    defendant was not convicted of murder.
    One month later, on August 24, 2020, defendant filed a
    petition for writ of mandate. On September 18, 2020, we issued
    an order deeming the petition for writ of mandate a notice of
    appeal from the July 24, 2020, denial of defendant’s first petition
    for resentencing. As a result, this appeal, No. B307181, ensued.
    III. Second Petition for Resentencing and Appeal No. B309494
    Meanwhile, on August 31, 2020, defendant filed a second
    section 1170.95 petition for resentencing in the trial court (second
    petition for resentencing). On October 28, 2020, the trial court
    summarily denied the second petition for resentencing, again, on
    the ground that defendant was not convicted of murder. On
    November 25, 2020, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the
    October 28, 2020, denial of his second petition for resentencing,
    and Appeal No. B309494 ensued.
    IV. Trial Court’s Acknowledgment of Error
    On March 2, 2021, the trial court acknowledged that it
    “was in error when it summarily denied the Penal Code
    section 1170.95 petition”—as defendant was convicted of
    murder—and “request[ed] that the Court of Appeal remand the
    case back to the trial court for further proceedings.”
    V. Dismissal of Appeal No. B309494 and Remand
    On March 10, 2021, defendant filed a motion in Appeal
    No. B309494 to remand the case for further proceedings and to
    dismiss Appeal No. B309494 as moot based on the trial court’s
    acknowledgement of error.
    We granted defendant’s motion in Appeal No. B309494 on
    March 11, 2021. Our order states, in part: “[T]his matter is
    3
    remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, under
    subdivision (c) of Penal Code § 1170.95, with respect to
    defendant’s petition for resentencing. The notice of appeal filed
    November 25, 2020 is hereby dismissed as moot. The clerk shall
    issue the remittitur forthwith.”
    VI. Continuation of the Instant Appeal
    On November 4, 2021, we appointed counsel to represent
    defendant in this appeal, Appeal No. B307181.4 Defendant’s
    appointed counsel filed an opening brief on November 24, 2021,
    arguing that the denial of the first petition for resentencing
    should be reversed because defendant was, in fact, convicted of
    murder.
    On December 6, 2021, we received a request directly from
    defendant asking us to dismiss this appeal “without prejudice[.]”
    Defendant stated that he “ha[d] no recognition” of filing a notice
    of appeal from “the July 24, 2020 denial[.]” On December 20,
    2021, we received another request directly from defendant to
    dismiss the appeal.
    The People filed a respondent’s brief on March 28, 2022,
    arguing that the instant appeal should be dismissed as moot
    because the appeal stemming from the second petition for
    resentencing had already resulted in a remand for further
    proceedings.
    On April 4, 2022, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a
    reply brief in which he argued that the instant appeal is not moot
    and that dismissing it while permitting the second petition for
    resentencing to proceed in the trial court “is an inadequate
    remedy as that second petition could itself be potentially denied
    4     Different counsel had been previously appointed to
    represent defendant in Appeal No. B309494.
    4
    not on the merits, but rather as an improper second and
    successive petition.”
    DISCUSSION
    “As a general rule, ‘“‘the duty of this court, as of every other
    judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment
    which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon
    moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles
    or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case
    before it.’”’ [Citation.] Thus, an ‘“action that originally was based
    on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if all
    the questions have become moot by subsequent acts or events.”’
    [Citations.] Put another way, ‘“[a]n appeal should be dismissed
    as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for
    the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief.”’
    [Citation.]” (People v. Pipkin (2018) 
    27 Cal.App.5th 1146
    , 1149–
    1150 (Pipkin).)
    Here, based on subsequent events, no effective relief can be
    offered to defendant through this appeal of the July 24, 2020,
    summary denial of the first petition for resentencing. In our
    March 11, 2021, dismissal and remand in Appeal No. B309494,
    we already directed the trial court to conduct further proceedings
    under section 1170.95, subdivision (c), with respect to defendant’s
    second petition for resentencing. The first and second petitions
    for resentencing are substantively the same—challenging the
    same murder conviction—and were denied for the same reason.
    Continuing with the instant appeal and reversing the order
    denying the first petition for resentencing would only result in
    duplicative petitions proceeding in the trial court. This would
    serve no useful purpose and warrants dismissal of this appeal.
    (See Pipkin, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1149–1150.)
    5
    Defendant’s appellate counsel argues that the instant
    appeal should not be dismissed because the trial court could
    potentially deny the second petition for resentencing “as an
    improper second and successive petition” rather than ruling on
    its merits.5 We disagree. The first petition for resentencing was
    denied and the matter will not be remanded for further
    consideration of that petition. Thus, duplicative petitions for
    resentencing will not be before the trial court. Pursuant to our
    March 11, 2021, order in Appeal No. 309494, the trial court must
    conduct further proceedings under section 1170.95, subdivision
    (c), with respect to the second petition for resentencing.
    DISPOSITION
    The appeal is dismissed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
    _____________________, Acting P. J.
    ASHMANN-GERST
    We concur:
    ________________________, J.
    CHAVEZ
    ________________________, J.
    HOFFSTADT
    5    Counsel acknowledges that defendant has personally
    submitted two requests that we dismiss this appeal. Counsel
    opposes those requests.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B307181

Filed Date: 6/10/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/10/2022