People v. Saibu
Decision Date | 26 July 2022 |
Docket Number | D078391 |
Citation | 81 Cal.App.5th 709,297 Cal.Rptr.3d 406 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Sadiq SAIBU, Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Summer Stephan, District Attorney, Mark A. Amador, Linh Lam, Valerie Ryan, and Anne Marie Spitzberg, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rebecca P. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
In 2008, a jury convicted Sadiq Saibu and Antonio Valentino for their roles in committing a robbery of a video store, two attempted robberies of a liquor store, and a murder and attempted murder in the same liquor store during one of the attempted robberies. Saibu appealed his conviction, arguing, among other things, that the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 703 with respect to the felony murder special circumstance allegation.1 In the published portion of our opinion, we agreed with Saibu on the jury instruction contention and reversed the jury's true finding on the robbery-murder special circumstance under Penal Code 2 section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). (See People v. Saibu (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1014, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 84.)
In 2019, Saibu filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.63 as to his murder conviction, contending he was not a major participant in the underlying felony murder and did not act in reckless indifference to human life. The superior court granted the requested relief.
The People appeal, arguing the superior court applied an incorrect legal standard when determining the merits of Saibu's petition. The People make clear they are not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence but rather are raising a pure legal issue for review.
While this case was pending, our Legislature enacted and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 775 (Senate Bill 775) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). Senate Bill 775 amended former section 1170.95 to expand eligibility for resentencing to persons convicted of attempted murder. As such, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs regarding whether the trial court's finding and order under former section 1170.95 should also apply to the attempted murder conviction because it arises from the same robbery as did the murder. Both parties submitted supplemental briefs. The People concede that Saibu's conviction for attempted murder is now eligible for resentencing under Senate Bill 775. However, they point out that the parties did not address that issue below (because Senate Bill 775 was not in effect at the time) and argue they should be given the opportunity to present additional evidence and argument to show Saibu is guilty of attempted murder after changes to the felony murder law. In contrast, Saibu argues that we should find he is entitled to relief under section 1172.6 based on the superior's court's finding that he did not act with reckless indifference to human life.
Regarding the superior court's determination that Saibu is entitled to relief under section 1172.6 as to his murder conviction, we determine, on the record before us, the People cannot show that the court committed reversible legal error. As such, we affirm the order. However, we are hesitant to extend the superior court's finding on the murder offense to the attempted murder offense even though both offenses are based on the same robbery. The People represent that they would have emphasized other evidence in the record relevant to the attempted murder offense that was not pertinent to the murder conviction. We believe the People should have the opportunity to present such evidence to the superior court. As such, we remand this matter back to the superior court with instructions to issue an order to show cause (OSC) and hold an evidentiary hearing regarding whether Saibu is entitled to relief under section 1172.6 as to his attempted murder conviction. We offer no opinion regarding the results of that hearing. That said, because we are affirming the superior court's finding that Saibu is entitled to relief pursuant to section 1172.6 for his murder conviction, that issue may not be reargued below, and the court's findings as to that issue may not be challenged as part of the new section 1172.6 hearing. (See People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 196-197, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 118 P.3d 496.)
To continue reading
Request your trial