People v. Stewart CA3

Filed 6/27/22 P. v. Stewart CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095147

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE- 2013-0005271, SF122937B) v.

FREDERICK ALAN STEWART,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Frederick Alan Stewart appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. 1 Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Based, in part, on new legislation that applies retroactively to defendant’s case, the People concur that

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

defendant is entitled to reversal and remand for further proceedings on his manslaughter conviction. We agree.2 LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Originally charged with first degree murder, defendant ultimately pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192), admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subds. (a) & (d)), and admitted that he was a principal who was armed during the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)). The parties agreed that the preliminary hearing served as the factual basis for the plea. In accordance with the plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to an 18-year state prison term. While defendant was serving his 18-year prison term, he filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant had not established a prima facie case for resentencing, as he was not convicted of murder, but manslaughter, and based on defendant’s conduct set forth in the preliminary hearing, he was either the killer or a major participant in the killing. In that order, the trial court noted “[Defendant] gave a statement to law enforcement admitting that he and a second individual went to Stockton from Sacramento in [defendant’s] car to conduct a major drug deal ($2500 worth of product). The victim was shot in [defendant’s] car. Later, the [defendant] was arrested with the murder weapon, he had thrown away his clothes, torched his car, and smashed his I phone [sic], in an attempt to conceal evidence.” Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed the trial court’s denial on the ground that defendant could not obtain relief from a section 1170.95 petition for a conviction of manslaughter. (People v. Stewart (July 17, 2020, C089230) [nonpub. opn.].)