People v. Padilla CA2/6

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Padilla CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B338640 (Super. Ct. No. SM109835) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

JULIE JESSICA PADILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Julie Jessica Padilla appeals from an order denying her petition seeking resentencing of her first degree murder conviction (Pen. Code,1 § 1172.6). She contends the trial court erred in denying the petition at the prima facie stage because the record of conviction does not conclusively refute she could have been convicted under a now invalid theory of murder. We affirm.

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 In 1998, Padilla and codefendants, Linda Gaye Achterberg and Jose Luis Estrada, Jr., drove Mona Masters to a remote location. Achterberg was driving the car. When they stopped, Padilla and Estrada got out of the car, laid Masters on the ground, doused her with gasoline, and lit her on fire. Padilla and her codefendants were charged with the “willful, deliberate, premeditated murder” of Masters (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1) with special circumstance allegations of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)) and kidnapping-murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 2). The complaint further alleged that Padilla served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Plea hearing In December 2000, Padilla pleaded no contest to first degree “willful, deliberate, premeditated murder” (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)). When asked if she admitted that “in the commission of this murder, it was not only intentional, but it involved an infliction of torture,” Padilla responded, “I can’t do that” and “I admit that they did it.” When asked again, Padilla said “I admit that I was there when they did it.” The court said, “That’s not sufficient. I can’t accept this plea.” The court clarified that it was “not trying to coerce” Padilla, but it explained that if “you were there and didn’t participate, then you’re not responsible for the acts of the others. . . . You’re not guilty of the special allegation. And without . . . the special allegation, there’s no first-degree murder warranting life without the possibility of parole.” The court further explained the People’s theory was that