People v. Godinez-Gonzales CA1/5

Filed 8/19/21 P. v. Godinez-Gonzales CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A160026 v. MARIO GODINEZ-GONZALES, (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. SCUKCRCR1583264)

Mario Godinez-Gonzales appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 He contends, and the People agree, that 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 A March 2016 information charged Godinez-Gonzales, Edgar Contreras, and Isidro Lopez Bernal (collectively, defendants) with murder (§ 187), alleging a special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17). The information also charged the

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

defendants with second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). In addition, the information alleged that defendants personally and intentionally discharged firearms during the commission of the crimes (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and personally and intentionally discharged firearms proximately causing the victim’s death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). A. Preliminary Hearing, Plea, and Sentence According to the preliminary hearing testimony, the defendants went to a marijuana “grow site” to steal marijuana plants. All three defendants were armed. As Godinez-Gonzales and Contreras trimmed and bundled marijuana leaves, a voice told them to stop. Gunshots followed and the defendants fled, firing their guns as they ran. At the grow site, police later found the dead body of the defendants’ victim. He had been shot, and there was a holstered firearm “on his side.” At the preliminary hearing, the prosecutor asserted “this is the classic felony murder case.” The prosecutor explained: “[W]e 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 the defendants to answer the charges. In April 2017, Godinez-Gonzales pled no contest to second degree murder (§§ 187, 190, subd. (a)) and second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and admitted personally using a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The parties agreed Godinez-Gonzales would receive a sentence of 30 years to life.