People v. Lindo CA4/2

── People v. Lindo CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Lindo CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E084042 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2003469) STEPHEN JOHN LINDO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Timothy F. Freer, Judge. Reversed. Aurora Elizabeth Bewicke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie H. Chow and Anne Spitzberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  Defendant and appellant Stephen John Lindo shot and killed his friend and business partner Michael Hinden during a struggle at defendant’s property. Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter with the personal use of a firearm. Defendant claims on appeal (1) his due process rights were violated by a series of instructional errors, which requires reversal of his involuntary manslaughter conviction; (2) he is entitled to remand for resentencing as the trial court erroneously relied on aggravating factors in sentencing him to the middle term on the firearm enhancement; and (3) he is entitled to additional custody credit. We conclude that there was prejudicial instructional error and reverse defendant’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant was charged by the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office with the murder of Hinden (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)).1 It was further alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). He was also charged with attempting to prevent or dissuade Hinden from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)) with the special allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Five aggravating factors were alleged for sentencing. The jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter within the meaning of section 192, subdivision (b). It found a firearm 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 enhancement true pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a). It found defendant not guilty of dissuading a witness in count 2. The aggravating factors were presented to the jury. The trial court declared a mistrial on the aggravating factors finding that there was a hung jury. The People chose not to retry the aggravating factors. Defendant was sentenced on May 31, 2024, to the low term of two years on the involuntary manslaughter and the midterm of four years on the gun enhancement, for a total of six years in state prison. B. FACTUAL HISTORY2 1. PEOPLE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF a. Relationship Between Defendant and Hinden Briana Reese dated Hinden for 10 years from 2013 through 2020. Reese met defendant through Hinden. Hinden and defendant had been best friends since they were