People v. Gonzalez CA5

Filed 5/10/21 P. v. Gonzalez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F079827 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR044963A) v.

DANIEL GONZALEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Nicholas Seymour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christina Hitomi Simpson and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

Appellant Daniel Gonzalez appeals after his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 was denied.1 Appellant argues the statute is ambiguous and should be construed to permit his resentencing. Additionally, he raises equal protection concerns should he not be eligible and argues the statute must be extended to include lesser included offenses. Appellant also argues the statute is constitutional. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2012, appellant was charged with one count of murder, one count of attempted murder, and one count of assault with a firearm, along with various enhancements, including a gang enhancement. In 2013, appellant pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, attempted manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and the gang enhancement. In 2019, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court denied appellant’s petition on multiple grounds, including that the statute was unconstitutional, that appellant was not convicted of murder, and that appellant could still have been convicted of murder under the amended statutory scheme. This timely appeal followed. DISCUSSION Standard of Review and Applicable Law

We review issues of statutory construction de novo. (People v. Gonzales (2018) 6 Cal.5th 44, 49.) Our goal is to determine the legislative intent of the statute. “Because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent, we look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning.” (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1040.) When the statutory language is unambiguous, its plain meaning controls. Where the language supports more than one reasonable construction, we may look to extrinsic aids, including the legislative history