People v. Trotter CA3
C089578A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2022Background
- Andy Otis Trotter (convicted 2009) and a codefendant—both gang members—fired shots from a car into a rival gang hangout; jury convicted Trotter of two counts of attempted murder (willful, deliberate, premeditated), discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, and shooting at an occupied vehicle; gang and firearm enhancements were found true.
- Trial court sentenced Trotter to an aggregate term of 30 years to life plus 40 years, including two consecutive 20‑year enhancements under §12022.53(c).
- Trotter filed a petition under Penal Code §1170.95 claiming he was convicted under the felony‑murder or natural‑and‑probable‑consequences (NPC) theory and thus might be eligible for resentencing under Senate Bill 1437 and later amendments.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition, finding Trotter was ineligible because he was convicted of attempted murder based on a finding of intent to kill (willful, deliberate, premeditated), not under an NPC theory; the appellate court initially affirmed.
- The California Supreme Court transferred the matter back for reconsideration in light of Senate Bill 775 and People v. Lewis; on reconsideration this court again affirmed, holding the record of conviction shows Trotter was not convicted under NPC and thus is ineligible for §1170.95 relief.
- The court also rejected Trotter’s request to remand for possible exercise of discretion under Senate Bill 620 to strike firearm enhancements, concluding he did not obtain resentencing or other collateral relief that would trigger §12022.53(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Trotter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner convicted of attempted murder may obtain relief under §1170.95 when record shows willful, deliberate, premeditated findings and no NPC instruction | Trotter is ineligible as a matter of law because he was not prosecuted or instructed under NPC; jury found intent to kill | Jury instructions/closing argument could have allowed imputed malice via aiding and abetting or confused the jury into an NPC theory | Denied: record (information and instructions) required a finding of intent to kill or shared murderous intent for aider/abettor, so §1170.95 relief unavailable |
| Whether remand required to permit trial court to consider striking §12022.53(c) enhancements under SB 620 | SB 620 discretion applies to resentencing following any collateral relief; Trotter’s petition should trigger court’s consideration if case is reopened | Because petition failed prima facie showing, he did not obtain resentencing or collateral relief that would invoke SB 620; no resentencing occurred | Denied: filing an unsuccessful §1170.95 petition does not reopen sentence; SB 620’s resentencing discretion (§12022.53(h)) does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (courts may consult the record of conviction, after counsel and briefing, to decide prima facie §1170.95 eligibility)
- People v. Soto, 51 Cal.App.5th 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (jury instruction record can show petitioner was convicted with required intent, defeating §1170.95 claim)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (court need not credit petition allegations that are refuted as a matter of law by the record)
- People v. Daniels, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (summary denial of §1170.95 petition appropriate where no NPC theory was presented to jury)
- People v. Johnson, 32 Cal.App.5th 938 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (SB 620’s §12022.53(h) discretion applies only when defendant actually obtains resentencing or collateral relief)