People v. Green CA2/6

Filed 9/15/20 P. v. Green CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B302182 (Super. Ct. No. BA437886) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

RAQUEL LESHA GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Raquel Lesha Green appeals from an order denying her petition to vacate her voluntary manslaughter conviction and obtain resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 1437), which went into effect on January 1, 2019. (See Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) S.B. 1437 amended the felony- murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine insofar as it applies to murder. It also added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code.1 If a defendant has previously been convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

consequences doctrine and qualifies for relief under section 1170.95, the statute permits the defendant to petition to vacate the conviction and obtain resentencing on any remaining counts. Appellant was charged with murder. (§ 187, subd. (a).) Pursuant to a plea bargain, in 2016 she pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. (§ 192, subd. (a).) She admitted allegations that the offense had been committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that a principal in the commission of the offense had been armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) She was sentenced to prison for 22 years. Without appointing counsel, the trial court summarily denied appellant’s petition because she “is not entitled to relief as a matter of law.” The court concluded that appellant is ineligible for relief because she “was a direct aider and abettor to the gang murder” and because section 1170.95 “provides potential relief only to those . . . convicted of murder.” We affirm. Facts The trial court stated: “As this court presided over the trial in the co-defendant’s case, it is familiar with the facts. [Appellant] was the driver of the vehicle from which the co- defendant shot the victim. She positioned the vehicle in such a manner as to facilitate both the shooting and the escape from the scene.” The trial court’s statement is the only indication of the facts in the record on appeal. S.B. 1437 and Section 1170.95 “Under the felony-murder rule as it existed prior to Senate Bill 1437, a defendant who intended to commit a specified felony could be convicted of murder for a killing during the felony, or attempted felony, without further examination of his or her