People v. Weeden CA3

Filed 9/22/22 P. v. Weeden CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C093750

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05F10198)

SARAH WEEDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2008, defendant Sarah Weeden was convicted of first degree murder among other things. She subsequently obtained habeas relief and pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. When she later filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6,1 the trial court denied her relief on the basis that section 1172.6 did not apply to the crime of voluntary manslaughter. Although that was true when the trial court made its ruling in 2021, as of January 1, 2022, section 1172.6 now applies to certain defendants

1 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered Penal Code section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

who were convicted of voluntary manslaughter. (Senate Bill No. 775 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2).) In light of these changes, we will reverse the trial court’s denial order and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the underlying facts is set forth in this court’s prior opinion in People v. Melonson (May 15, 2013, C061352 & C061800) [nonpub opn.] (Melonson). In 2005, defendant struck up a conversation with Nanvil Chand and later arranged to meet him. Defendant was 14 years old at the time and mentioned to a friend that she would rob Chand and his friends. During the scheduled meeting, Sirtice Melonson and another man shot Chand and his friend. Chand died and his friend was injured. Defendant and Melonson were charged with murder, attempted murder, and attempted second degree robbery. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664/187, subd. (a), 664/211.) A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and attempted second degree robbery. The jury also found true that defendant was armed. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 25 years to life in prison plus four years. This court affirmed the judgment. (Melonson, supra, C061352 & C061800.) The Ninth Circuit subsequently granted defendant’s petition for federal habeas corpus relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (Weeden v. Johnson (9th Cir. 2017) 854 F.3d 1063.) The judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded. Proceedings resumed in the trial court and defendant pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. The trial court sentenced defendant to 11 years in state prison with credit for time served, and defendant was released from custody. In September 2019, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1172.6. She argued she was originally convicted of first degree murder based entirely on felony murder, and she subsequently pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter because she believed she could have been convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule. The trial court denied the petition because, under the published case