People v. Murillo CA5

Filed 9/12/24 P. v. Murillo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086398 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR056744B) v.

JORGE DAVID MURILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Eric Christoffersen and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.

Appellant Jorge David Murillo appeals following the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The parties agree that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition at the prima facie stage of the statutory proceedings. Upon review of the record and arguments, we accept the parties’ positions and therefore reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant’s criminal case arose out of a 2017 robbery and murder involving appellant, James Ridge, and Kahlid Ramsey. Appellant and Ramsey were both charged with murder committed during the course of a felony. Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of first degree murder in 2018. Under the terms of the plea agreement, appellant agreed to testify truthfully in Ridge’s trial in exchange for the right to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea to modified charges, resulting in a stipulated sentence of 18 years in prison instead of a term of 25 years to life. In September 2018, after testifying as required, appellant successfully withdrew his initial plea and entered a guilty plea to a changed set of offenses, including voluntary manslaughter. Approximately a year later, in 2019, appellant again moved to withdraw his plea. This time, appellant argued that Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), the precursor to what is now Penal Code section 1172.6, justified the withdrawal. The trial court denied this motion and appellant was eventually sentenced in line with his modified plea agreement. In denying the motion, the trial court concluded the statute was unconstitutional, appellant was ineligible, and that appellant was a major participant in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life. In January 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Although no briefing was filed, the matter was set for an order to show cause hearing in August 2022. At that hearing, appellant stated he wished to withdraw his petition. The