People v. Faulalo CA3

Filed 2/14/23 P. v. Faulalo CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094142

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 04F02695)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

LANGIMA’A FAULALO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Langima’a Faulalo challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section1 1172.62 based on changes made to the felony-

1 Unspecified statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was recodified without substantive change to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Defendant filed his petition under

1

murder rule by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437). Defendant argued the trial court erred in relying on the jury’s special circumstance finding to deny his petition. In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the court’s order denying defendant’s resentencing petition, holding that the jury’s true special circumstance findings, which had not been set aside through habeas, precluded relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. (People v. Faulalo (Apr. 25, 2022, C094142) [nonpub. opn.].) The California Supreme Court subsequently granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our opinion and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong). By separate order, we vacated our decision. In supplemental briefing after transfer, the parties agree that under Strong the jury’s true findings on the robbery-murder and burglary-murder special circumstance allegations, which were made before our Supreme Court’s decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark) clarified what it means to be a major participant who acts with reckless indifference to human life, do not render defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Having reconsidered the matter, we agree and will reverse and remand for further proceedings under section 1172.6.