People v. Seay CA3

Filed 2/28/24 P. v. Seay CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C096529

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE023832)

v.

RONALD SEAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Ronald Seay guilty of first degree murder and found true allegations defendant committed the offense while lying in wait and personally used a firearm causing the death of Amber Clark (Clark). Defense counsel asked the trial court to use its “newly-found power” under Penal Code section 13851 to strike the firearm

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

enhancement at sentencing. The court denied defendant’s request. On appeal, defendant argues the court abused its discretion because it did not consider and afford great weight to defendant’s mental illness or consider the lack of danger to public safety if the enhancement were stricken. Defendant also notes an error in the abstract of judgment. Because we conclude the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion when considering defendant’s claims, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. BACKGROUND Defendant was a frequent visitor to the library where Clark worked as a library supervisor. He violated library rules many times; the police were sometimes summoned, and Clark prepared a notice to ban defendant from the library. A police officer gave defendant the notice. Two months later, Clark was leaving a library meeting when defendant shot and killed her in her car. Before trial, the court received reports from mental health experts: two describing defendant’s competency to stand trial and two regarding his sanity at the time of the crime. Each of the experts diagnosed defendant with various mental disorders. A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true allegations that defendant committed the murder while lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) and personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel asked the trial court to strike the firearm enhancement, saying: “I would ask -- under Penal Code Section 1385 and the Court’s newly-found power over the last few years from the legislature -- to strike the [section] 12022.53(d) enhancement. [¶] I understand that there’s no logical basis for that, based on the facts found true by the Court, but . . . I believe there isn’t any chance [defendant] will be commuted from the life-without-possibility-of-parole commitment, and I believe that in one act of mercy, albeit very, very -- not of any significance, if you will, I’d ask the Court to consider striking the [section] 12022.53(d) enhancement.”