People v. Davis CA3

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Davis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C102629

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 1997-0017439, SP061873A) v.

WILLIS DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant Willis Davis’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 On appeal, Davis argues that the court erred in considering his testimony from his 2020 parole suitability hearing. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND In 1997, Davis pleaded guilty to second degree murder pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In 2022, Davis filed a petition for resentencing under what is now section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, but we reversed and remanded with directions that the court issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Davis (Jan. 24, 2024, C097495) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the People asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the transcript from the preliminary hearing held before Davis’s plea, and they submitted a transcript from Davis’s parole suitability hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings in 2020. At that hearing, Davis testified that he brought a rifle to the home of an intended victim, but when he arrived, a woman began wrestling with him over the gun, “and then that’s how I accidentally killed her.” Davis said that the gun “went off” while the woman wrestled with him. When a commissioner told him that the gun did not go off by itself, Davis stated, “I take responsibility for that. Because I shouldn’t, I shouldn’t went over there with a gun period.” The commissioner then asked, “you had the intent to kill and you did. Right?” Davis responded, “Yeah.” Davis filed a reply brief objecting to the consideration of his testimony from the parole suitability hearing. Citing People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867 (Coleman), he argued that an inmate’s parole hearing testimony should be protected by use immunity and therefore inadmissible at a later criminal proceeding. He further maintained that, without his parole hearing testimony, the People could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed murder as defined under current law. At the hearing, the trial court explained that it considered non-hearsay testimony from the preliminary hearing as well as Davis’s testimony from the parole suitability hearing. Davis himself objected that his testimony at two prior parole suitability hearings contradicted his testimony at the 2020 hearing because he did not admit anything at his first two parole hearings. The court informed Davis that neither party had submitted transcripts from prior parole suitability hearings. Based on the evidence submitted, the