In re Watson CA2/5

Filed 6/2/22 In re Watson CA2/5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re LADRAE WATSON B303328

on (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. Habeas Corpus. MA068412)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in habeas corpus. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shannon Knight, Judge. Petition denied. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Phillip J. Lindsay, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Malone, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Krista L. Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

We previously granted Ladrae Watson’s (petitioner’s) habeas corpus petition seeking early parole consideration under a provision added to our state constitution by the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). The cause is now again before us after our Supreme Court directed us to reconsider the matter in light of its opinion in In re Mohammad (2022) 12 Cal.5th 518 (Mohammad), which reversed this court’s grant of habeas corpus relief under similar circumstances.

I. BACKGROUND Petitioner pled no contest in 2017 to charges of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), willful infliction of corporal injury after sustaining a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1)), and dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). He also admitted, for purposes of an alleged sentencing enhancement, that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the assault (Pen. Code, § 12022.4, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced petitioner to eight years in prison, calculated as two years for the assault conviction, four years for the firearm enhancement, 16 months for the domestic violence conviction, and eight months for the dissuading a witness conviction. Petitioner subsequently sought habeas corpus relief in the superior court. He argued article I, section 32 of California’s Constitution, enacted by voters as part of Proposition 57, made him eligible for early parole consideration. The specific constitutional provision at issue states: “Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of