People v. Hollis CA3

Filed 11/12/21 P. v. Hollis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C092116

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10F08037)

SHAYANA HOLLIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2010, defendant Shayana Hollis’s codefendant, Marquis Greenwood, shot and killed defendant’s boyfriend during a botched armed robbery while defendant waited in the car. Defendant pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192,

1

subd. (a))1 and admitted that she was a principal who was armed during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). In 2019, defendant petitioned the trial court for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95, which the trial court denied because she was not convicted of murder and thus not eligible for relief under the statute. Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition, arguing it erred when it ruled that her voluntary manslaughter conviction bars her from relief. We find no error and affirm. BACKGROUND Originally charged with first degree murder under a theory of felony murder, defendant ultimately pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted that she was a principal who was armed during the commission of the offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to a stipulated 12-year prison term. While defendant was serving her 12-year prison term, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 1-4), which amended the law governing murder liability under the felony murder and natural and probable consequences theories and provided a new procedure under section 1170.95 for eligible defendants to petition for recall and resentencing. Defendant filed a section 1170.95 petition. The People informally opposed the petition via letter, and defendant filed a reply. The People then filed a motion to dismiss the petition, and the trial court appointed counsel and ordered further briefing. After receiving the additional briefing from both parties, the trial court denied the petition, finding defendant had not established a prima facie case for resentencing, as she was not convicted of murder, but manslaughter.