People v. Monger CA1/3

Filed 1/19/22 P. v. Monger CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163687

v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 94194) STEVEN MATTHEW MONGER, Defendant and Appellant.

In 1988, the Alameda County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Steven Matthew Monger with murder, together with an allegation that a principal was armed with a shotgun, for the October 21, 1987 shooting of Gary Bradford. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, 12022, subd. (a).) The probation department reported that defendant and an accomplice attempted to rob the victim. In the course of that attempt, defendant struck the victim with a baseball bat and then the accomplice fatally shot the victim. On March 21, 1990, defendant, having waived his rights, pleaded no contest to the murder count (stipulated to be murder in the second degree), with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a term

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

of 15 years to life in state prison. On June 14, 1990, defendant was sentenced as promised at the change of plea proceeding. After serving 27 years in custody, defendant was released on parole in December 2014. On July 29, 2019, defendant filed a petition seeking to vacate his murder conviction and for resentencing under section 1170.95. In response, the People agreed defendant had established a prima facie case showing he was eligible for relief. In reply, defendant asked the court to exercise its discretion, on its own motion, to dismiss the action under section 1385. (People v. Smith (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 655, 657 [while section 1385 does not provide for a formal motion by the defense, “a defendant can informally suggest that a court consider a dismissal of charges against him”].) On September 14, 2021, a hearing was held on defendant’s section 1170.95 petition. The trial court found defendant had made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief, and “by previous agreement,” the court issued an order to show cause and immediately proceeded to a hearing on whether the defendant was entitled to relief. At the hearing, the prosecutor conceded defendant was entitled to have his murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced at that time. The trial court found defendant was entitled to section 1170.95 relief and vacated the murder conviction. It recognized that, for purposes of resentencing, it had the authority to redesignate the murder conviction as convictions for more than one felony. (See People v. Watson (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 474, 492.) However, recognizing defendant’s rehabilitative efforts, the court chose not to impose “a lot of felony convictions” and instead redesignated the murder conviction as a