California Court of Appeal Sep 9, 2022 No. E077735Unpublished
Filed 9/9/22 P. v. Allen CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E077735
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1100315)
KRISTINA LYNN ALLEN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Reversed.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, A. Natasha Cortina, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Robin
Urbanski and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
Kristina Lynn Allen appeals from the summary dismissal of her petition for
resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95.1
Under former section 1170.95, as it stood at the time, petitioner was not entitled to
resentencing, because she had pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, rather than
Finally, SB 1437 also enacted former section 1170.95 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4),
which allowed a person:
(1) who was charged with murder on either a felony murder or a natural and
probable consequences theory,
(2) who either:
(a) “was convicted of . . . murder following a trial”; or
(b) “accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial . . . for . . . murder,” and
(3) who could no longer be convicted of murder under SB 1437,
to petition to have the murder conviction vacated. (Former § 1170.95, subd. (a).) If the
petition was granted, and the underlying felony or target offense was not charged, the
conviction was reduced to the underlying felony or the target offense, and the petitioner
4
had to be resentenced. (Id., subd. (e).) The petitioner also had to be resentenced on any
remaining counts. (Id., subd. (d)(3).)
As originally enacted, former section 1170.95 did not expressly refer to
manslaughter. Hence, it was generally held that a person convicted of voluntary
manslaughter, rather than murder, was not eligible for relief. (E.g., People v. Harris
(Feb. 3, 2021, E074136), review granted Apr. 21, 2021 (S267529), cause transferred and
ordered not citable Dec. 29, 2021.) It was also generally held that a person who pleaded
guilty to voluntary manslaughter was not eligible for relief. (E.g., People v. Sanchez
(2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 917.)
C. Petitioner’s Petition for Resentencing.
In July 2021, petitioner filed a petition, in pro. per., for resentencing. She alleged
that she had pleaded guilty to murder because she believed she could have been convicted
of murder based on the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine. She also alleged that she could not now be convicted of murder due to
SB 1437. She requested the appointment of counsel.
In August 2021, at a status conference, the trial court dismissed the petition,
without appointing counsel and without a hearing. It ruled that petitioner was not eligible
for relief because she had pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder.
In September 2021, petitioner appealed.
5
D. Amendments to Former Section 1170.95.
In October 2021, former section 1170.95 was amended, effective January 1, 2022.
(Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.) As amended, it made a person who was convicted of or who
pleaded guilty to manslaughter potentially eligible for relief. (Former § 1170.95, subds.
(a), (d), (e), Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.)
III
DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that she is entitled to the benefits of the 2021 amendments
making former section 1170.95 applicable to a person convicted of voluntary
manslaughter. The People concede the point. We agree.
Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of these ameliorative amendments, because the
order denying her petition is not yet final. (People v. Porter (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 644,
652.)
Under the law as it now stands, petitioner stated a prima facie case for relief.
According to her petition, when viewed in light of the record of conviction (see People v.
Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-972), she alleged that she pleaded guilty to voluntary
manslaughter in lieu of a trial at which she could have been convicted of murder on a
felony murder or a natural and probable consequences theory. (§ 1172.6, subds. (a)(1),
(a)(2).) And she alleged that she could no longer be convicted of murder, because the
felony murder rule no longer applies to her and because the natural and probable
consequences doctrine has been abrogated. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).)
6
It follows that the trial court must appoint counsel for petitioner. (§ 1172.6, subd.
(b)(3).) Ordinarily, it would have to allow the People to file a response and hold a prima
facie hearing (§ 1172.6, subd. (c)). The People, however, concede that it may skip the
prima facie hearing and issue an order to show cause immediately on remand. (See Ibid.)
IV
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is reversed and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
SLOUGH J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter is entitled to the benefits of legislative amendments extending resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95) to manslaughter convictions.
Issues
Whether a defendant convicted of voluntary manslaughter is eligible for resentencing relief under amended Penal Code section 1170.95.
Disposition. Reversed and remanded.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Subsequent amendments, however, extended the benefits of former section 1170.95 to persons convicted of voluntary manslaughter.”
“As the People concede, petitioner is entitled to the benefit of these ameliorative amendments.”
“Under the law as it now stands, petitioner stated a prima facie case for relief.”