People v. Valadez CA3

Filed 6/28/24 P. v. Valadez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098790

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE012231)

v.

NICHOLAS VALADEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nicholas Valadez was originally charged with murder but pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter in 2019. He appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 He argues he is entitled to relief because he could have been convicted of murder under a theory of imputed malice even though he was convicted (entered his plea) after Senate Bill

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

1

No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) went into effect and amended the murder statutes to eliminate imputed malice theories. We affirm the order of denial. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2016, police officers found a man who had been shot dead inside a residence that contained over 800 marijuana plants. The victim also had other injuries to his face and hands, suggesting he had struggled with his assailant. Defendant later admitted to police he was there when the victim was killed. In 2017, defendant was charged with murder while armed with a firearm. It was further alleged that the murder was committed during a burglary. In January 2019, defendant pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter as part of a resolution of this case and two others not at issue here. During the plea hearing, both the prosecutor and defense counsel acknowledged that defendant had not actually killed the victim, but he had been involved in the burglary that led to the victim’s death. Discussing the recent changes to the homicide laws by Senate Bill 1437, the prosecutor noted that, “Prior to the change in the Felony Murder Law this case would have been otherwise, in my view, a relatively straightforward felony murder. . . . [H]owever, in light of the Legislature’s change in felony murder, I think the issue about whether or not he acted with reckless disregard for human life is a triable issue,” and therefore it was in the interest of justice to enter into the plea deal. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for a total of 28 years 8 months, including two years for the voluntary manslaughter. In June 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Counsel was appointed, and the prosecution filed a brief arguing defendant was ineligible for relief because he entered his plea after Senate Bill 1437 went into effect. Defendant filed a reply arguing it was not until 2021, or two years after his plea, that manslaughter came within the scope of section 1172.6.