People v. Goodwin CA2/8 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 3/3/21 P. v. Goodwin CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                   B307231
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. GA052683)
    v.
    MICHAEL FRANK GOODWIN,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County. Stanley Blumenfeld, Judge. Affirmed.
    Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
    Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
    Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Michael R. Johnsen, Deputy
    Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    **********
    Defendant and appellant Michael Frank Goodwin was
    convicted of two counts of first degree murder arising from the
    execution-style shooting deaths of Mickey and Trudy Thompson
    in the driveway of their home in 1988. The jury also found true
    lying-in-wait and multiple-murder special-circumstance
    allegations as to each murder count. Defendant was sentenced to
    two life terms without the possibility of parole. In 2015, we
    affirmed defendant’s conviction in an unpublished decision.
    (People v. Goodwin (Jan. 26, 2015, B197574) [nonpub. opn.].)
    After the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018
    Reg. Sess.) in 2018, defendant filed a petition for resentencing
    pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. Section 1170.95 was
    enacted as part of the legislative changes effected by Senate Bill
    No. 1437 and became effective January 1, 2019. (Stats. 2018,
    ch. 1015, § 4.) Defendant, acting in propria persona, filed a form
    petition in which he alleged he was convicted of first degree
    murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable
    consequences doctrine and that he could no longer be so convicted
    in light of the changes made to sections 188 and 189 by Senate
    Bill No. 1437. Defendant stated he was not the actual killer, did
    not act with intent to kill and was not a major participant in the
    deaths of Mickey and Trudy Thompson. Defendant attached
    several exhibits to his petition, including excerpts of the jury
    instructions and a declaration from one of the jurors. Defendant
    also requested the appointment of counsel.
    At a hearing in June 2020, the trial court summarily
    denied defendant’s petition without appointing counsel.
    Relying on a review of the jury instructions, the verdict
    forms and our prior opinion affirming defendant’s conviction, the
    trial court found defendant was not eligible for resentencing and
    2
    could not make out a prima facie case because he had not been
    convicted under the felony murder doctrine or under a natural
    and probable consequences theory. Rather, defendant was found
    guilty under a theory of conspiracy to commit murder or as a
    direct aider and abettor and the jury necessarily found defendant
    acted with express malice as to both murders in finding true the
    lying-in-wait special-circumstance allegations.
    Defendant appealed. He contends the trial court erred in
    summarily denying his resentencing petition without first
    appointing him counsel and allowing an evidentiary hearing.
    Defendant also argues the court engaged in improper factfinding
    at the initial review stage by reviewing the record of conviction.
    We disagree. Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (c)
    provides the court “shall review the petition and determine if the
    petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner
    falls within the provisions of this section.” The statutory
    language, read in context, contemplates an initial eligibility
    determination by the court. Allegations stated in a resentencing
    petition may be erroneous. Where, as here, there is no
    reasonable factual dispute regarding eligibility for relief, it would
    be a waste of judicial resources to automatically require the
    appointment of counsel and briefing on a moot point. Several
    courts have interpreted the statutory language and have
    concluded that a defendant seeking resentencing is entitled to
    appointment of counsel only after demonstrating a prima facie
    case, and the Supreme Court is now considering the issue. (See,
    e.g., People v. Lewis (2020) 
    43 Cal.App.5th 1128
    , 1139–1140,
    review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598 (Lewis); People v.
    Cornelius (2020) 
    44 Cal.App.5th 54
    , 58, review granted Mar. 18,
    2020, S260410; People v. Verdugo (2020) 
    44 Cal.App.5th 320
    ,
    3
    328–332, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493 (Verdugo);
    People v. Tarkington (2020) 
    49 Cal.App.5th 892
    , 901–902, review
    granted Aug. 12, 2020, S263219 (Tarkington).)
    Pending guidance from the Supreme Court, we adopt the
    persuasive analyses in these decisions. We are not persuaded by
    defendant’s argument that Lewis, Cornelius, Verdugo and
    Tarkington were wrongly decided. The statutory framework
    supports the trial court’s authority to make an initial eligibility
    determination as a matter of law without appointing counsel.
    Moreover, for the same reasons we identified in People v. Falcone
    (2020) 
    57 Cal.App.5th 272
    , 279, review granted January 27, 2021,
    S266041, the denial of counsel did not infringe on defendant’s
    rights.
    The trial court also did not err, nor did it engage in
    improper factfinding, in relying on our prior opinion in making its
    eligibility determination. Numerous courts have concluded the
    prior opinion from a defendant’s direct appeal may be considered
    by the trial court as part of the record of conviction in ruling on a
    resentencing petition. (See, e.g., Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at
    pp. 1137–1138, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598; Verdugo,
    supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at pp. 329–330, 333, review granted
    Mar. 18, 2020, S260493; Tarkington, supra, 49 Cal.App.5th at
    p. 899, fn. 5, review granted Aug. 12, 2020, S263219.) Pending
    the Supreme Court’s resolution of this issue in Lewis, we adopt
    the analyses in these decisions.
    We granted respondent’s request to take judicial notice of
    the appellate record in People v. Goodwin, supra, B197574.
    The record of conviction here demonstrates the trial court
    did not err in concluding as a matter of law defendant could not
    establish eligibility for resentencing. Defendant was charged
    4
    only with two counts of murder. Defendant was not prosecuted
    on a theory of felony murder or under a natural and probable
    consequences theory. He was prosecuted as a coconspirator or
    direct aider and abettor in a murder-for-hire scheme and could be
    prosecuted under those same theories under the amended murder
    statutes. Moreover, the jury necessarily found defendant acted
    with express malice with respect to both murders by finding true
    the lying-in-wait special-circumstance allegations. (People v.
    Flinner (2020) 
    10 Cal.5th 686
    , 748 [lying-in-wait special
    circumstance requires proof “the killing was intentional, not
    merely committed with implied malice”].)
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying defendant’s resentencing petition is
    affirmed.
    GRIMES, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    BIGELOW, P. J.
    STRATTON, J.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B307231

Filed Date: 3/3/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2021