People v. Reynolds CA4/3

Filed 6/30/22 P. v. Reynolds CA4/3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G056849

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14WF3283)

CHRISTINE MARIE REYNOLDS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Donahue, Judge. Conditionally reversed and remanded. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is the third opinion we have written in this case. In the first, we affirmed appellant’s conviction for premeditated murder. (People v. Reynolds (June 26, 2017, G052948) [nonpub. opn.] (Reynolds I). In the second, we upheld the trial court’s refusal to strike appellant’s 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement under Penal Code 1 section 12022.53, subdivision (d). We also ruled the trial court lacked the authority to reduce that enhancement to a lesser included one. (People v. Reynolds (Feb. 25, 2020, G056849) [nonpub. opn.] (Reynolds II). However, the California Supreme Court granted appellant’s petition for review on the enhancement-reduction issue and subsequently decided in People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 (Tirado) that trial courts do have the power to reduce a firearm enhancement imposed pursuant to section 12022.53(d). Therefore, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to us with directions to vacate our decision in Reynolds II and reconsider the cause in light of Tirado. In accordance with those directions, we vacate our decision in Reynolds II and conditionally reverse the trial court’s order respecting appellant’s firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d). Although we find the court acted within its discretion in refusing to strike the enhancement altogether, its comments surrounding that decision do not clearly indicate it would be unwilling to reduce the enhancement to a lesser included one if that option were available. Accordingly, we conditionally reverse the trial court’s denial order and remand the matter for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was convicted of first degree murder for fatally shooting her 96- year-old mother Gretchen. The shooting was preceded by many years of strife between appellant and her mother, but on the day it occurred, there was no arguing or friction between them. Appellant simply retrieved a gun from her car, calmly walked up to Gretchen, and shot her in the forehead while she was talking on the phone. Although