People v. Rossier CA2/7

Filed 1/10/24 P. v. Rossier CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B323884

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA272661) v.

JAZMIN ROSSIER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael E. Pastor, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________

In 2008 Jazmin Rossier was convicted of second degree murder and attempted premeditated murder for crimes she committed when she was 16 years old. In 2020 she filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1172.95 (now section 1172.6),1 which provides a procedure for an individual convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences theory to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and be resentenced on any remaining counts if the individual could not have been convicted of murder under changes to sections 188 and 189 pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). The trial court granted Rossier’s petition with respect to the attempted murder count but denied it with respect to the murder count. Rossier filed a motion to remand the case to the juvenile court under Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32) (Proposition 57), which reformed the process by which criminal cases may be filed against juveniles in adult criminal court. The court denied the motion on the basis the court had not resentenced Rossier on the murder count, keeping the sentence the same. Rossier contends, the People concede, and we agree she was entitled to a remand under Proposition 57 in light of the trial court’s order granting her petition for resentencing on the attempted murder count, even though the court denied her petition on the murder count, and further, the new burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence will apply to the hearing