Does West have a case to answer on his appeal against his sentence for the murder of a man during a carjacking?

And it is not clear how any such showing could have been made. Even assuming that West was not the actual killer and did not have the intent to kill, he did not qualify for resentencing if he "was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life." ( 189, subd. (e).) In finding the special circumstance true, the jury necessarily concluded either that West had the intent to kill, or that all of the following were true: "1. The defendant's participation in the crime began before or during the killing; [] 2. The defendant was a major participant in the crime; [] AND 3. When the defendant participated in the crime, he acted with reckless indifference to human life." (See CALCRIM No. 703.) As the trial court discussed, the evidence showed that West participated in the carjacking and that he fired at least two shots at Griffin's occupied vehicle, amply demonstrating reckless indifference to human life. And in our opinion on direct appeal, we concluded that the true finding on the special circumstance allegation was supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Johnson, supra A121366.) West has not offered any argument or alleged any facts to address any of this, either below or with the benefit of appointed counsel on appeal. Under these circumstances, he has failed to make a prima facie case that he is entitled to resentencing.

Page 13