People v. Melonson CA3

Filed 11/9/23 P. v. Melonson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097433

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F10198)

v.

SIRTICE MELONSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2008, a jury found, inter alia, defendant Sirtice Melonson guilty of first degree murder and found he personally used a firearm to kill the victim. The jury also found defendant guilty of attempted murder and found defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of that crime, resulting in great bodily injury to the victim. The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 50 years to life, plus 19 years 4 months.

1

In March 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court denied defendant’s petition, finding he failed to make a prima facie showing for relief. We will affirm the court’s order. BACKGROUND We take the facts from our prior opinion. (People v. Melonson (May 15, 2013, C061352) [nonpub. opn.].) According to our opinion, “[s]eventeen-year-old Navnil Chand, his brother, and two friends approached 14-year-old defendant Sarah Weeden and some of her friends and struck up a conversation. Navnil later called Weeden, who arranged to meet him a few days later. Navnil and a friend, 22-year-old Deovinesh Kumar, arrived at the assignation, where they were met by defendant . . . and another man. The men ordered Navnil and Kumar out of the car, and as Kumar opened his door one of the men shot into the vehicle. Navnil was attempting to open his door when multiple shots rang out. Navnil died of gunshot wounds; Kumar lost part of his finger.” The People subsequently charged defendant and Weeden with Navnil’s murder, the attempted murder of Kumar, and the attempted second degree robbery of Navnil and Kumar. The People also charged defendant with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and alleged a prior strike conviction. The People also alleged “the murder of NAVNIL . . . was committed by defendant . . . , while the said defendant was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of the crime of robbery . . . .” The People further alleged that defendant “used, and intentionally and personally discharged a firearm, . . . and thereby proximately caused great bodily injury or death to NAVNIL . . . who was not an accomplice of the defendant, within the meaning of . . .