People v. Sheppard CA5

Filed 12/12/25 P. v. Sheppard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F089016 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SC027664A) v.

MELISSA ANN SHEPPARD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, Lewis A. Martinez, Galen N. Farris and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION In 1985, a jury convicted defendant Melissa Ann Sheppard of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187), with the special circumstances the murder was committed during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery and burglary (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i), (a)(17)(vii)), and involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). Defendant was sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). (People v. Sheppard (Dec. 4, 1987, F006780 [nonpub. opn.] (Sheppard I).) In 2024, defendant filed a motion for a Franklin/Cook2 proceeding under section 1203.01. The trial court summarily denied the motion without prejudice. On appeal, defendant contends her “case must be remanded for resentencing because the trial court erred in denying her motion fo[r] a Franklin hearing in violation of due process of law.” (Capitalization and boldface omitted.) Specifically, she argues that “should [she] prevail in Case No. F088355[3] and the result be a recall of her sentence, she may well no longer have an LWOP sentence, and can have a Franklin hearing.” We concluded in case No. F088355 that “defendant has no right to appeal from the trial court’s order [denying her request for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.1] and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” (People v. Sheppard (Dec. 12, 2025, F088355 [nonpub. opn.].) Therefore, her LWOP sentence remains. Because defendant’s LWOP sentence remains, she is not entitled to a Franklin/Cook proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of her Franklin/Cook motion.