People v. Solomon CA2/5

Filed 5/14/24 P. v. Solomon CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B331964

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA020188) v.

SHASHONEE MONETTE SOLOMON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen A. Marcus, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

In 1999, a jury convicted ShaShonee Monette Solomon of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)(1); count 5), and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(2); count 4). Solomon admitted that he had suffered two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). He was sentenced to 36 years to life in prison. In 2019, Solomon filed his first petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), which the trial court denied. In 2022, Solomon filed a second petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel. The People opposed the petition as successive, and argued that Solomon was convicted as a direct aider and abettor. Solomon filed a reply asserting that successive petitions are not barred. At a prima facie hearing on the matter, the trial court ruled that Solomon was not barred from filing a successive petition, but found that Solomon had not made a prima facie case for relief. Solomon was not convicted under a theory of murder that is no longer valid. He was convicted as a direct aider and abettor of first degree murder and was also convicted of conspiracy to murder. Solomon appealed, and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, Solomon’s attorney filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We invited Solomon to submit a supplemental brief. Solomon submitted a five-page letter in response that asserts he is prima facie eligible for relief and entitled to an evidentiary hearing. He requests that we review the reply brief