People v. Roessler CA3

Filed 7/16/21 P. v. Roessler CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090009

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. MANCRFE20130001315, v. MF036585B)

MICHAEL LEE ROESSLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court denied defendant Michael Lee Roessler’s request to strike a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53.1 Defendant appeals that denial, arguing the court failed to consider whether it should reduce, rather than strike, the enhancement. We will affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND Defendant shot and killed the victim following an extended dispute that began at a bar and concluded in front of the victim’s home. (People v. Roessler (May 15, 2018, C078697) [nonpub. opn.].) He was convicted of second degree murder. (§ 187.) The jury also found true allegations he intentionally and personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)). On appeal, we affirmed the judgment but remanded the case to allow defendant to place additional information on the record that might later be relevant to future youth offender parole hearings and so the trial court could consider whether to exercise its discretion under Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682) to strike the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement. (Roessler, supra, C078697.) The trial court held a hearing following the remand. Defendant argued the court should consider his intoxication at the time of the murder, the actions of other individuals in the dispute that preceded the shooting, and the sincere remorse defendant had shown as mitigating factors. The prosecution responded that defendant’s actions were not impulsive, the crime did not involve a complex set of facts, and the evidence clearly established defendant had personally used a firearm to murder the victim. The court considered the evidence of defendant’s intoxication, but concluded defendant was not “grossly intoxicated.” The court then considered the facts of the case, saying: “Mr. Oliver provided the firearms. But this was a request to get firearms . . . . So this was done over a period of time before the incident. To me, that indicates there was significant premeditation. There was some sort of an incident at a bar a few hours before the killing involving the decedent and members of the Defendant’s side. It was just a foolish incident. There was no deadly force. It was words and bad feelings. “Certainly nothing to justify the use of deadly force. No reason to have deadly force. And as far as I could tell, at the time of that incident at the bar when the problem