People v. Saechao CA3

Filed 11/16/22 P. v. Saechao CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C095794

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 06F01200)

v.

NAI SAECHAO,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2007, defendant Nai Saechao pled guilty to first degree murder and admitted the perpetrator was armed with a firearm and intentionally killed the victim by lying in wait. In 2021, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.61 (former section 1170.95), which the trial court denied. Defendant appeals that denial,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was recodified without substantive change to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

1

contending the trial court erred in finding him ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We will affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The factual basis for defendant’s 2007 guilty plea was drawn from the prosecution’s trial brief, summarized on the record as follows: “[I]n 2005 the defendant was married—had a common law marriage with the victim Si Saeturn. And in the summer or the spring of 2005 the defendant began an extra-marital relationship with Mimi Le, who became pregnant, that the defendant’s wife, the victim in this case, Si Saeturn, learned about the affair, tried to stop it, that in the fall of 2005 the defendant and Mimi Le began to conspire to have the victim Si Saeturn killed, that in efforts to do that the defendant made various attempts to obtain a firearm, that Mimi Le made various attempts to obtain a firearm, that in fact the defendant approached his cousins, a Khae Saephanh and Lo—and Chiang Saephanh and also a friend of theirs named Lo Saephanh and they became involved with the conspiracy on the defendant’s behest to have his wife murdered. “And ultimately on the 29th of December, 2005, the defendants Khae Saephanh and Lo Saephanh went to a park where they essentially recruited a juvenile . . . and offered him money—up to $400 if he would actually commit the killing. They drove the juvenile to the scene of where the victim was working. Around [10] p.m. she got off work, left her business. [The juvenile] came up to her and shot her once in the head and once in the abdomen. He had been waiting—lying in wait for at least 10 to 20 minutes hiding behind a wall for her to come out to catch her by surprise which he did. “The evidence will show that the defendant in this case aided and abetted Khae Saephanh, Lo Saephanh, and [the juvenile] by conspiring with them, by orchestrating the procurement of a weapon and ammunition for that weapon to be used in this murder.” Defense counsel agreed the factual basis “would be a sufficient basis for this plea.” Defendant personally indicated he did not disagree with the factual basis. He pled