People v. Gulley CA3

Filed 6/29/22 P. v. Gulley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092839

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 04F06339)

v.

RENECHA MARINA GULLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

In September 2006, a jury found defendant Renecha Marina Gulley guilty of assault and second degree murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on the assault count and stayed an additional term of 15 years to life on defendant’s conviction for second degree murder.

1

In February 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court found defendant ineligible for relief because the factual summary in this court’s prior opinion indicated the jury could have found defendant guilty of murder under a direct aider and abettor theory. Defendant timely appealed and now contends the trial court erred in determining defendant failed to state a prima facie case. The People concede the issue and agree the matter should be remanded for further proceedings. We accept the People’s concession.

BACKGROUND On February 27, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The People filed a response and moved the trial court to dismiss the petition. Defendant then filed her reply. After quoting extensively from this court’s prior opinion affirming defendant’s conviction, the court denied defendant’s petition without issuing an order to show cause. In reaching its decision, the trial court found that although the jury “was instructed on both direct aiding and abetting and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, there was sufficient evidence for a juror to have found defendant . . . guilt[y] based on an implied malice theory . . . . As this could have occurred, defendant . . . is not eligible to seek relief from her second degree murder conviction under Penal Code [section] 1170.95.” The court further explained it was not weighing evidence or making credibility determinations but was “undertaking a review of the Third District’s appellate opinion and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial that would allow a jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant . . . is guilty of second degree murder based on