People v. Goodson CA5

Filed 5/11/21 P. v. Goodson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079847 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF152669B) v.

WALTER GOODSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Ross Thomas, 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, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant Walter Goodson 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 and, additionally, raises equal protection concerns should he not be eligible. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2014, appellant was charged with one count of first degree murder, one count of attempted murder, one count of participating in a street gang, and one count of discharging a weapon from a vehicle, along with several enhancements. In 2015, appellant pleaded no contest to the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter and participating in a street gang, along with certain enhancements. In 2019, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court rejected this petition on the ground appellant was not eligible for relief. This appeal timely 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, for additional guidance. (People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100, 1105–1106.) Finally, in exceedingly rare situations, the literal meaning of the statutory language may be disregarded to avoid absurd results. (People v. Bell (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 315, 351.)