People v. Buckley CA3

Filed 4/3/25 P. v. Buckley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099962

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2019-0007197) v.

MAURICE BUCKLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Maurice Buckley appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code1 section 1172.6 petition. He contends the court erred in denying his petition at the prima facie stage because he pled no contest to manslaughter to avoid prosecution for murder based on a theory of imputed malice. He further argues there was insufficient evidence to support the weapon enhancement he admitted to. Finding no merit to these contentions, we affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 28, 2019, the People charged Buckley with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), second degree robbery (§ 211), vehicular manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (c)(1)), and hit and run driving resulting in death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). As to the vehicular manslaughter count, the People alleged that Buckley fled the scene of the crime in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (c). On December 14, 2020, Buckley pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and admitted that he used a “non-firearm” weapon under section 12022, subdivision (a). The prosecutor stated the following factual basis at the plea hearing: “On October 1st, 2018 in San Joaquin County, in the city of Stockton, the defendant took money . . . from the victim’s vehicle. The defendant ran into his vehicle, got into his car and started driving away. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . While driving his vehicle away from the location, the victim got on top of the vehicle and was carried away on the car. As the defendant was fleeing in the car with the victim on top of the vehicle, the victim fell off the defendant’s car. The car that was following the defendant’s car ran into the victim, killing him.” The trial court asked defense counsel if she concurred in the factual basis. Defense counsel responded: “Your Honor, we agree that on or about October 1st, 2018, in the city of Stockton, in the county of San Joaquin, that Mr. Buckley did, during a sudden quarrel, cause the unlawful killing of another human being without malice.” The court then asked defense counsel, “And with the use of a non-firearm weapon?” Defense counsel replied, “With the use of a non-firearm weapon.” The trial court sentenced Buckley to six years (the middle term) for voluntary manslaughter and one year for the weapon enhancement. In 2023, Buckley petitioned for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage for two reasons. First, the court explained, Buckley was charged in 2019 and was convicted long after the law on murder