People v. Ross CA3

Filed 7/1/25 P. v. Ross CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101510

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P19CRF04422) v.

CHRISTOPHER GARY ROSS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Christopher Gary Ross filed a petition for resentencing on his March 2022 manslaughter conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6. (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant was ineligible for relief as he was charged and pleaded guilty after section 1172.6 became effective. Defendant appeals the order denying him postconviction relief, and defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Defendant

1

filed a supplemental brief in which he argues he meets the requirements for relief under section 1172.6. Having considered defendant’s supplemental brief in accordance with Delgadillo, we affirm the order.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In October 2019, the People filed a complaint against defendant alleging he and his codefendants committed murder and that defendant committed involuntary manslaughter of a police officer. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 192, sub. (b).) In March of 2022, the People filed an amended complaint that charged defendant with voluntary manslaughter and possession of cannabis for sale. (§ 192, subd. (a), Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (d).) Defendant pleaded no contest to manslaughter and possession of cannabis for sale on March 1, 2022. (§ 192, subd. (a); Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (d).) The factual basis for defendant’s plea stipulated that defendant misled responding sheriff’s deputies and placed them in harm’s way. As a result of his actions, one deputy was shot and killed and a second was shot and injured. As more fully described in the probation report, defendant called the dispatch to report he saw five unknown suspects in his legal marijuana grow and that they were attempting to steal his marijuana. Deputy sheriffs responded and contacted defendant who directed them to the “garden,” and was described as “inappropriately calm.” Despite the quiet scene, the deputies were soon subject to deadly fire from men in the garden that killed one officer and injured another. After giving several versions of his story, defendant admitted he called the sheriff’s department because he believed men were stealing his marijuana and would not pay him. He hoped the deputies would show up and catch the men stealing marijuana and arrest them for trespassing. He did not want to handle the matter himself because he was afraid the thieves might kill him.