The People v. Ross

Defendant Christopher Gary Ross filed a petition for resentencing on his March 2022 manslaughter conviction under Penal Code section 1172 .6. (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant was ineligible for relief as he was charged and pleaded guilty after section 1172 .6 became effective.

Defendant appeals the order denying him postconviction relief, and defendant's appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo ( 2022 ) 14 Cal.5th 216, asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Defendant

filed a supplemental brief in which he argues he meets the requirements for relief under section 1172 .6. Having considered defendant's supplemental brief in accordance with Delgadillo, we affirm the order.

In October 2019 , the People filed a complaint against defendant alleging he and his codefendants committed murder and that defendant committed involuntary manslaughter of a police officer. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 192, sub. (b).) In March of 2022 , the People filed an amended complaint that charged defendant with voluntary manslaughter and possession of cannabis for sale. (§ 192, subd. (a), Health & Saf. Code, § , subd. (d).)

Defendant pleaded no contest to manslaughter and possession of cannabis for sale on March 1, 2022 . (§ 192, subd. (a); Health & Saf. Code, § , subd. (d).)

The factual basis for defendant's plea stipulated that defendant misled responding sheriff's deputies and placed them in harm's way. As a result of his actions, one deputy was shot and killed and a second was shot and injured. As more fully described in the probation report, defendant called the dispatch to report he saw five unknown suspects in his legal marijuana grow and that they were attempting to steal his marijuana. Deputy sheriffs responded and contacted defendant who directed them to the "garden," and was described as "inappropriately calm." Despite the quiet scene, the deputies were soon subject to deadly fire from men in the garden that killed one officer and injured another. After giving several versions of his story, defendant admitted he called the sheriff's department because he believed men were stealing his marijuana and would not pay him. He hoped the deputies would show up and catch the men stealing marijuana and arrest them for trespassing. He did not want to handle the matter himself because he was afraid the thieves might kill him.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 11 years in state prison on the voluntary manslaughter charge and a consecutive term of eight months for the possession of cannabis for sale.

In 2023 , defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172 .6 alleging he had been charged with murder under a pleading that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person's participation in a crime; he had been convicted murder, attempted murder or manslaughter after trial or a plea; and he could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019 .

The People opposed the motion, arguing, "The defendant's argument lacks merit as the law had already changed prior to his having even committed the offense." At the hearing on the motion, defendant's attorney conceded, "Because [defendant] entered a plea after the effective date of the statute, the procedure does not apply to him[.]"

The trial court denied the motion finding the defendant was not eligible for relief because at the time defendant entered his plea (March 2022 ), the law had already been changed (in 2019 ) and counsel and the courts were aware of this change.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

The independent review procedures in People v. Wende ( 1979 ) 25 Cal.3d 436 are not constitutionally required in an appeal from a postconviction order denying a section 1172 .6 petition for resentencing. (People V. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 222, 224-225.) Where, as here, defendant has been notified that his appeal may be dismissed pursuant to Delgadillo and he files a supplemental brief raising issues he wants considered, we must evaluate the specific arguments presented in the defendant's