People v. Ingram CA3

Filed 1/10/22 P. v. Ingram CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C093280

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F04787 )

v.

AMBER INGRAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Amber Ingram appeals the trial court’s denial of her petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95,1 enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437), arguing the trial court erred in denying her petition for relief without granting an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing under section 1170.95, subdivision (d). The People

1 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

concur that defendant is entitled to reversal and remand for further proceedings. As we shall explain, we agree with the parties.

BACKGROUND

Given the stance of this appeal, it is not necessary to recount at length the tragic death of defendant’s five-year-old son at the hands of her then-boyfriend resulting in defendant’s conviction for second degree murder (§ 187) as well as her conviction for permitting her child to suffer unjustifiable pain or injury resulting in death. (§§ 273a, subd. (a), 12022.95.) (People v. Zamora et al. (Dec. 17, 2012, C067275, C067276) [nonpub. opn.], [1-2, 4].) It is enough to note that defendant was tried for murder on the theory that her son’s death was the natural and probable consequence of her boyfriend’s abuse, which she did nothing to prevent. (Id. [p. 3].) We upheld these convictions on appeal. (Ibid.) Thereafter, on January 17, 2019, defendant filed a pro per petition for resentencing under section 1170.95, requesting the trial court vacate her second degree murder conviction that was procured on a natural and probable consequences theory. The People opposed this petition and briefing concerning defendant’s eligibility and the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 ensued. On November 16, 2020, the trial court denied defendant’s petition for relief in a written ruling, which noted that defendant had been tried and the jury instructed only on the natural and probable consequences doctrine theory of murder. Nonetheless, the trial court determined defendant had not established her eligibility for relief under section 1170.95 because this court’s previous opinion upholding her conviction appeared to have done so on a theory of direct aiding and abetting. And even if that opinion had stopped short of making that conclusion and relied only on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, it still established that she still could be convicted on an actual aider and abettor theory. Accordingly, the trial court reasoned, defendant could not establish that she could