People v. Disa CA1/2

Filed 5/4/23 P. v. Disa CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165887 v. ADAM WADE DISA, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR210260) Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Adam Disa guilty of first degree murder. (People v. Disa (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 654, 664 (Disa I).) In defendant’s direct appeal, we found sufficient evidence to support the murder conviction, but we reversed due to evidentiary error. (Id. at pp. 657–658.) Defendant subsequently pleaded no contest to second degree murder. In 2022, defendant petitioned for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (as amended by Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2).1 The trial court denied the petition on the ground defendant failed to make a prima facie case for relief. We affirm. Defendant is ineligible for resentencing

The Legislature has since renumbered Penal Code section 1170.95 as 1

section 1172.6 without substantive change, effective June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10; People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708, fn. 2 (Strong).) Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

because he was convicted based on evidence, including his admission, that he was the actual killer. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Underlying Murder Conviction Defendant was charged with the murder of Katie Gillihan and corporal injury on a cohabitant with the special allegation that he inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances of domestic violence. (Disa I, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 658–659.) Trial Evidence and Jury Verdict The prosecution’s evidence included a videotaped interview of defendant by detectives in which defendant admitted he put Gillihan in chokehold and felt her go limp. (Disa I, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at pp. 658–660.) In the interview, defendant stated Gillihan was his girlfriend and they lived together. (Id. at p. 659.) He described what led to the killing as follows: “ ‘I think it was probably around 5:30 in the morning that um, she did, woken me up. And um, she was telling me you need to get out. . . . And um, I was like, well I’m not going anywhere. And then that’s when the insults started to happen. . . . And I guess she swung at me and I’m half asleep and after that it’s, all I remember is um, I guess I had her in a choke hold and um. To be honest, man I thought she was sleeping because while I went to um, you know, she was laying there and then um, I went to work. I came back that same night and she, I guess she wasn’t sleeping.’ ” (Id. at p. 660.) Defendant said he held Gillihan in the chokehold “ ‘for about a minute or so. Maybe a little bit longer,’ ” including “ ‘[m]aybe 15 seconds’ ” after she went limp. (Ibid.) In the videotaped interview, defendant called the hold he used on Gillihan “a ‘figure four or something’ ” and demonstrated the hold for the