Opinion
2d Crim. B323794
07-21-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ODELL D. HODGES, Defendant and Appellant.
Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Los Angeles No. BA203416 Norman J. Shapiro, Judge
Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P. J.
Odell D. Hodges appeals the trial court's order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170.95.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Former section 1170.95 has been renumbered section 1172.6.
FACTS
Hodges and a friend, who was wearing a blue cap, walked by three people, including Desmond Alexander, affiliated with the Bloods street gang. Alexander wanted to know why Hodges' friend was wearing a blue cap in a Bloods neighborhood. A fist fight broke out. After about five minutes, Hodges and his friend retreated.
Shortly thereafter, a van drove by and stopped near Alexander. The driver got out with a shotgun. Hodges got out with a handgun. They chased Alexander to the back of a house. A witness heard gunshots. The men returned to the van and drove away. Alexander was found dead with a gunshot wound to his back.
A jury found Hodges guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true that Hodges personally used and discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced Hodges to 45 years to life.
The trial court denied Hodges' petition to be resentenced under section 1170.95 on the ground that the jury was not instructed on any theory of imputed malice.
APPEAL
We appointed counsel to represent Hodges on appeal. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.) On June 12, 2023, we notified Hodges that his counsel filed a brief raising no issues and that he may submit a supplementary brief within 30 days. Hodges filed a timely supplemental brief. In Hodges' brief he claims the jury was instructed on imputed malice. The jury was not. The jury was instructed on direct aiding and abetting: that the defendant must act with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and with the intent of committing, encouraging, or instigating the crime. (CALJIC No. 3.01.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: BALTODANO, J. CODY, J.