In re Watson CA2/5

Filed 9/2/20 In re Watson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re LADRAE WATSON B303328

on (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. Habeas Corpus. MA068412)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in habeas corpus. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shannon Knight, Judge. Petition granted. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Krista L. Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

Petitioner Ladrae Watson (petitioner) pled no contest in 2017 to charges of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), willful infliction of corporal injury after sustaining a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1)), and dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). He also admitted, for purposes of an alleged sentencing enhancement, that he used a firearm in the commission of the assault. The trial court sentenced him to eight years in prison, calculated as two years for the assault conviction, four years for the firearm enhancement, 16 months for the domestic violence conviction, and eight months for the dissuading a witness conviction. Two years later, petitioner filed a petition in the superior court contending he was entitled to early parole consideration under the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). Proposition 57 added section 32, subdivision (a) to Article I of California’s Constitution. That subdivision reads: “Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of his or her primary offense.” The trial court denied defendant’s request for relief, finding he was not entitled to early parole consideration because he “pled no contest to assault with a firearm and admitted a special allegation of personal use of a firearm, making the offense a violent felony.” Petitioner then filed a petition for habeas corpus in this court seeking the same Proposition 57 relief he sought in the trial court. The parties agree two of petitioner’s 2017 convictions, the dissuading a witness and willful infliction of corporal injury offenses, are nonviolent offenses while the third, assault with a firearm, is a violent felony. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3490, subd. (c) [for purposes of Proposition 57, a “‘[v]iolent felony’ is a crime or enhancement as defined in subdivision (c) of section 667.5 of the Penal Code”]; see also Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c).) There is also no dispute that our holding in In re Mohammad