People v. Contreras CA1/5

Filed 6/18/21 P. v. Contreras CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160042 v. (Mendocino County EDGAR FIDEL CONTRERAS, Super. Ct. No. SCUKCRCR1583264) Defendant and Appellant.

Edgar Fidel Contreras appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Contreras contends—and the People agree—the trial court erred by summarily denying his petition because he made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and the record did not conclusively establish his ineligibility as a matter of law. We accept the People’s concession, reverse the order denying the petition, and remand for further proceedings. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In March 2016, the prosecution filed an information charging Contreras, Mario Godinez Gonzalez, and Isidro Lopez Bernal

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(collectively, defendants) with one count of murder (§ 187), with a special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(D)), and with one count of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). The information also alleged defendants personally and intentionally discharged firearms during the commission of the crimes (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and that they personally and intentionally discharged firearms proximately causing the victim’s death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). A. Preliminary Hearing, Plea, and Sentence Defendants went to a marijuana grow site in Mendocino County to steal marijuana plants.2 All three defendants were armed. As Contreras and Gonzalez trimmed and bundled marijuana leaves, a voice told them to stop. Then Contreras heard several gunshots. Defendants fled, firing their guns as they ran. At the grow site, police found the victim’s dead body. He had been shot three times. The victim had a firearm in a holster at his side. At the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor asserted “this is the classic felony murder case” and explained: “we don’t know which shot killed [the victim]. We know all defendants discharged a firearm and we know from the felony murder [rule] they are all on the hook . . . because they [were] in the attempted commission of a robbery. . . . They shot and someone died and that’s the basis of the felony murder rule.” The court agreed “this is a classic case of the felony murder rule” and held Contreras to answer the charges.