People v. Williams CA1/3

Filed 4/27/21 P. v. Williams CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A158917 v. TRACY JOLEEN WILLIAMS, (Humboldt County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CR091869DS)

Defendant Tracy Williams, who was charged with murder but pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, appeals an order denying her Penal Code section 1170.951 petition for resentencing. The trial court erred by finding section 1170.95 unconstitutional. However, because a conviction for voluntary manslaughter is ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2009, defendant was charged with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) which occurred while she engaged in an attempted robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and one count of first degree robbery (§ 211). She admitted a personal firearm use enhancement

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and that she acted in concert with two or more individuals (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)). The court sentenced her to 23 years in state prison. While defendant was serving her sentence, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) to restrict “the circumstances under which a person can be liable for murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.)” (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 246 (Lamoureux).) It amended sections 188 and 189, relating to murder, “to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); §§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e).) The legislation also established a procedure for vacating prior convictions for felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences theory that do not fulfill these amended criteria. (§ 1170.95, subds. (a), (c), (d)(1).) Shortly after the legislation was enacted, defendant filed a section 1170.95 petition for resentencing. On the record, the trial court found that the defendant made a prima facie showing that she was entitled to relief.2 In the actual order, the trial court dismissed the petition after concluding section 1170.95 was unconstitutional—finding it violated the separation of powers doctrine and victims’ right to finality of judgments, and it deprived the parties of their right to have a jury trial.