Filed 4/3/23 P. v. Sims CA2/5 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B315624 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA046081) v. RASHIED SIMS et al., Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa B. Lench, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Rashied Sims. Elizabeth Richardson-Royer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Byone Woods III. Christine Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant John Thomas Horton. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daniel C. Chang and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Three defendants – Byone Woods III, Rashied Sims, and John Horton – killed victim Gary Gibson in the course of robbing him. Woods was the actual shooter; Sims and Horton were prosecuted on a felony-murder theory. Sims and Horton went to trial and were convicted of first degree murder. Woods then pleaded guilty to second degree murder. Decades later, all three defendants filed petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied all three petitions. Woods’s petition was denied on the ground that he was the actual killer; Sims’s and Horton’s were denied because they were major participants in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference to life. All three defendants appeal. Sims and Horton challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that they acted with reckless indifference, and raise multiple evidentiary issues. Woods joins his codefendants’ evidentiary arguments, but his main assertion on appeal is that denying his petition on the theory that he was the actual shooter, when he had pleaded guilty to only second degree murder, constitutes a violation of double jeopardy principles. We affirm. 1 The statute was originally number 1170.95; it was renumbered effective June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We use the current numbering. Unless otherwise indicated, all undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Proceedings Involving Guilt A. The Underlying Crime2 On September 11, 1991, victim Gibson and his girlfriend Robin Steiner spent the evening at the Mustang Motel. They left around 11:00 p.m., and went to Gibson’s car in the parking lot. Gibson’s car had previously been backed into a spot near their room. Gibson unlocked the passenger door for Steiner. As she entered the car, she saw defendants’ vehicle, which had been pulling out of the parking lot, back up, and park in front of Gibson’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals