People v. Mills CA1/1

── People v. Mills CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 P. v. Mills CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171485 v. ADRIAN MILLS, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05009211210) Defendant and Appellant. After a 1992 bench trial, the trial court found Adrian Mills guilty of, as relevant to this appeal, (1) the second degree murder of Robert Jiles, with an enhancement for having caused death by firing a gun from a vehicle with intent to cause great bodily injury or death (Pen. Code1, §§ 187, 12022.55) and (2) the attempted murder of Walter McDuffie, with an enhancement for use of a firearm (§§ 187, 664, 12022.5, subd. (a)). The court (hereinafter “sentencing court”) sentenced Mills to 20 years to life for the murder and section 12022.55 enhancement and seven years for the attempted murder. Mills appealed. This court agreed there had been sentencing error and remanded with directions to replace the section 12022.55 enhancement— which was improper because it requires harm to a person other than an occupant of a vehicle, and Jiles undisputedly was in a vehicle when Mills shot 1 All undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code. 1 him—with a lesser-included firearm enhancement (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), for which the sentencing court thereafter imposed the four-year midterm.2 In 2022, Mills filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d). After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court (hereinafter “resentencing court”) denied the petition. In this appeal, Mills claims the resentencing court erred in finding that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of murder on two alternative bases that are valid under current law: second degree express malice murder as Jiles’s actual killer, and felony murder as a major participant in the killing who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Mills does not challenge the denial of relief as to his attempted murder conviction. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 Prima Facie Showing The People opposed Mills’s petition for resentencing, contending he was ineligible for relief because he had been convicted of murder as the actual killer. The resentencing court disagreed, pointing out the sentencing court had not, in its memorandum of decision, made an express finding that Mills was the actual killer, and it was not impossible that the sentencing court had We judicially notice our prior opinion (People v. Mills (Aug. 24, 1993, 2 A058891) [nonpub. opn.]), solely for the purpose of identifying the legal issues it resolved (and not for the truth of any of its factual recitals). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.) Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite—in the 3 discussion section below—only those facts necessary to our analysis. In that regard, we deny as irrelevant Mills’s request for judicial notice of the definition of a term mentioned in this court’s opinion in Mills’s 1993 appeal. 2 found him guilty on a natural and probable consequences th