People v. Millsap CA1/3

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Millsap CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169533 v. PAMELA FAYE MILLSAP, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR2000832) Defendant and Appellant.

After appellant Pamela Faye Millsap was convicted of child abuse, the trial court denied her request to dismiss two sentencing enhancements under Penal Code section 1385.1 She contends the trial court failed to accord proper weight to statutory mitigating factors. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The Shooting In early 2020, appellant Pamela Millsap lived with her then-partner, their 10-year-old daughter Jane Doe (Jane), and appellant’s 17-year-old son Christopher Millsap (Christopher).2 Christopher had a history of verbal and physical violence against appellant, her partner, and appellant’s mother.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Because Christopher Millsap shares a last name with appellant, we

refer to him by his first name, intending no disrespect.

1

On the evening of February 18, 2020, Christopher arrived home intoxicated. While he and appellant were in the laundry room together, they began to argue about whether a friend of his could come to the house. Christopher yelled, kicked the laundry machine, and threatened to kill appellant. From her bedroom, Jane saw Christopher walking back toward his own bedroom, then appellant approached him, holding a gun, which was normally kept in appellant’s bedroom. Appellant and Christopher argued again. Christopher grabbed the gun in an attempt to pull it away, and the weapon discharged, fatally wounding him. Appellant told police officers who came to the scene that she thought the gun’s safety was on. Appellant testified at trial in her own defense. She explained that as they argued in the laundry room, Christopher threatened to kill her, and she was afraid. She went to her room to retrieve, load, and rack a shotgun before emerging again.3 She believed retrieving the gun and racking a shell in the chamber would scare Christopher into leaving the house to cool off. Instead, Christopher lunged at appellant and grabbed the barrel of the gun, still threatening to kill her, and the weapon discharged as they struggled. Appellant testified that the safety was on and that she did not intend to fire the weapon. II. Legal Proceedings A jury found appellant guilty of two counts of child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a)), one as to Christopher (count 2) and the other as to Jane (count 3). The jury found true an allegation that appellant personally inflicted great