People v. Sebourn CA5

Filed 6/16/21 P. v. Sebourn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079872 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1456746) v.

JESSE JAMES SEBOURN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Thomas D. Zeff, Judge. Lillian Hamrick, 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, Catherine Chatman and Harry Joseph Colombo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant Jesse James Sebourn appeals after his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 was denied.1 Appellant argues the statute 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 2013, appellant was charged with one count of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, along with a gang enhancement. In 2014, after changes to the charges, appellant was tried on a single count of second degree murder. This trial resulted in a hung jury and mistrial. In 2016, prior to his retrial, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the crime of voluntary manslaughter and admitted the gang enhancement. In 2019, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court ultimately rejected this petition, ruling that “by its terms, Penal Code section 1170.95 applies only to defendants who have been convicted of murder. [Appellant] entered a plea to, and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and was not convicted of murder. [Appellant] is therefore ineligible for resentencing.” 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,