Jarmon Sanford, sentenced to 89 years to life in prison for attempted murder in a 2006 gang shooting in Pasadena, could be home for Christmas.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan overturned one of two attempted murder convictions against Sanford because of a flaw in the prosecution’s instructions to the jury.

Sanford, who was 19 at the time of his 2008 conviction, is scheduled to be re-sentenced on November 20. His lawyers hope he gets a prison sentence for the latest murder attempt, meaning he could be released from California’s Men in Chinos facility in time for the holidays.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sanford was convicted of firing a semi-automatic weapon from a passing car at two rival gang members outside a Pasadena apartment complex in December 2006. One of the men, Trevell Thompson, was hit in the leg.

Key to the conviction was the prosecution’s misuse of the “death zone” legal theory. The prosecution argued that Sanford could be charged with attempted murder against anyone in the area, whether or not he intended to kill them. Under that argument, there’s no need to prove intent, which elevates a standard shooting to a crime punishable by up to life in prison, said Sanford’s attorney, Annee Della Donna .

Della Donna argued in Superior Court that the “deadly zone” theory was too broad and misapplied in Sanford’s case.

In 2019, the state Supreme Court ruled in People v. Canizales that the theory requires that the shooter intend to murder a specific person in the kill zone and be willing to kill everyone else in the area to achieve that goal.

In Sanford’s case, there was no evidence he intended to kill the gang rival who was not shot, according to Ryan’s ruling. Although there may be a “conscious disregard” for the victim’s safety, there is no intention to kill them.

Ryan found the prosecution’s explanation to the jury of the “kill zone” theory to be misleading and incorrect.

The prosecution described the theory this way: “If you intend to kill the person you intend to kill, and you do not intend to shoot someone who is found in the same area. »

But according to Ryan, intention is necessary, even for those who aren’t the primary target.

“The court cannot conclude that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have returned the same verdict in the absence of these educational errors,” Ryan ruled.