People v. Wright CA2/2

Filed 8/2/23 P. v. Wright CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B318839 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A383951) v. EDWARD JUDSON WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed. Edward J. Haggerty, 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, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant Edward Judson Wright appeals from the order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6, entered after an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to subdivision (d) of that statute.1 Defendant, who requests de novo review of the issues, sets forth as grounds for reversal that substantial evidence did not support a finding that he directly aided and abetted the killing with intent to kill and that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Defendant also contends the order denying his resentencing petition cannot be affirmed under a theory of aiding and abetting second degree implied malice murder. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, and he was thus guilty of felony murder under current law. As we affirm the trial court’s ruling on that ground, we do not reach defendant’s other contentions. BACKGROUND 1983 conviction In 1982, defendant and his brother Curtis Duane Wright (Curtis)2 were charged with the murder of Donald Houts and robbery and burglary of the victim’s home, as well as three additional robbery counts against separate victims. The 1 All further unattributed code sections are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 As defendant and his brother share their last name, we refer to Curtis by his first name to avoid confusion. 2 information also alleged that Curtis had been armed with a firearm. After defendant’s and Curtis’s trials were severed, defendant waived a jury trial and agreed to the admission into evidence of a portion of the preliminary hearing testimony in addition to live testimony. Following a court trial defendant was convicted of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), three counts of robbery (§ 211), and one count of burglary (§ 459), along with true findings that a principal was armed in the commission of the offenses. On May 17, 1983, defendant was sentenced to a total term of …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals