People v. Mullenix CA4/3

Filed 6/17/21 P. v. Mullenix CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059194

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06WF2607)

RACHAEL SCARLETT MULLENIX, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Reversed. Richard Power, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2008, a jury convicted Rachael Scarlett Mullenix (Rachel) of first degree murder and she is serving a 25-years-to-life prison term. In October 2019, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the superior court recommending that due to Mullenix’s conduct in prison, her sentence be recalled and she be resentenced. The trial court issued an order summarily denying Mullenix’s request to resentence and denying her subsequent motion to vacate that order in order to permit a hearing with representation and evidence. Mullenix argues the trial court abused its discretion because it did not afford her an opportunity to present evidence in support of CDCR’s recommendation before denying the resentencing request. The Attorney General concedes that for the limited purpose of determining whether to recall a sentence following CDCR’s recommendation, the court should consider information from either the inmate or the prosecution if requested. We accept the concession and reverse. FACTS A complete recitation of the facts can be found in People v. Mullenix (May 12, 2010, G041068) [nonpub. opn.]. Suffice it to say, on September 13, 2006, the Newport Beach Police Department found the body of Barbara Mullenix (Barbara) floating in Newport Harbor. She suffered more than 50 stab wounds; criminalists later determined three or four different knives had been used in the murder. A butter knife remained embedded beneath one eye. The body was wrapped in sheets and a blanket. Investigators found a half-closed, four-inch pocketknife in the bedding. They also found a cardboard box for a large television floating near the body. Laboratory testing revealed Rachael’s DNA on the duct tape used to seal the box.