People v. Polson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF32385
- Trial judge
- Marco Nunez
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia Guerrero
Analysis
The trial court denied Polson's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, ruling that her conviction for voluntary manslaughter rendered her ineligible for relief under Senate Bill No. 1437. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that the statute does not apply to defendants who pleaded guilty to manslaughter to avoid a murder trial.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95“On the record before us, Polson is not eligible for resentencing as a matter of law, and the trial court properly denied her petition.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the plain language of the statute, which limits eligibility to convictions for first or second degree murder. The court relied on a unanimous line of published California appellate decisions that have consistently rejected the argument that a plea to manslaughter to avoid a murder trial qualifies for resentencing under Senate Bill 1437. The equal protection argument was also properly rejected as it has been addressed and dismissed in prior published authority. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — A plea of guilty to manslaughter in order to avoid a murder trial does not qualify the defendant for resentencing under section 1170.95.
- relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — Statutory interpretation of section 1170.95 does not extend relief to defendants convicted of manslaughter.
- relied: People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884 — Defendants convicted of manslaughter are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
- relied: People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557 — The Legislature did not intend for section 1170.95 to apply to manslaughter convictions entered via plea to avoid murder liability.
- relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914 — Section 1170.95 relief is limited to murder convictions and does not extend to manslaughter.
- relied: People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 — A guilty plea to manslaughter does not satisfy the statutory requirement for resentencing under section 1170.95.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the plain language of the statute and relies on a unanimous body of published California appellate authority that has consistently rejected the appellant's arguments. The court appropriately follows precedent without needing to re-analyze the issues, as the legal questions have been squarely decided by the same court and others.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Imperial County Superior Court denied Ann Marie Polson's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition, ruling that her 2014 plea to voluntary manslaughter made her ineligible for Senate Bill No. 1437 relief, which is limited to murder convictions. The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting her statutory-interpretation and equal protection arguments by following its own decision in People v. Turner and the uniform published appellate authority.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.95 petition on the ground that a voluntary manslaughter conviction (by plea) is categorically ineligible for resentencing relief“On the record before us, Polson is not eligible for resentencing as a matter of law, and the trial court properly denied her petition.” | de novo | correct | agree with court At the time of the opinion (August 2021), section 1170.95 by its terms applied only to persons convicted of first or second degree murder, and every published Court of Appeal decision (Turner, Cervantes, Flores, Sanchez, Paige, Harris) had held that manslaughter convictions, including those obtained by plea to avoid a murder trial, fell outside the statute. The court treated the question as one of law, consistent with de novo review of statutory interpretation. The result is correct under the statute as it then read; the Legislature's later expansion to manslaughter in Senate Bill No. 775 postdates this decision and does not bear on its correctness. |
Rejection of the equal protection challenge to excluding manslaughter convictions from section 1170.95 relief“All the published opinions of the Courts of Appeal have soundly rejected both arguments.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court did not independently analyze the equal protection claim but incorporated by reference its analysis in Turner, which held that persons convicted of manslaughter are not similarly situated to those convicted of murder and that the Legislature had a rational basis for limiting relief to murder convictions. That conclusion was uniformly accepted by the published appellate decisions cited and was a defensible application of rational-basis review; nothing in the opinion suggests misapplication of equal protection doctrine. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — A defendant who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter to avoid a murder trial is ineligible for section 1170.95 relief, and the exclusion does not violate equal protection.
- relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — Section 1170.95 relief is limited to murder convictions and does not extend to voluntary manslaughter convictions entered by plea.
- relied: People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884 — The plain language of section 1170.95 excludes defendants convicted of manslaughter.
- relied: People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557 — Manslaughter convictions are outside section 1170.95 and the exclusion survives equal protection scrutiny (cited with notation that review had been granted).
- relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914 — Section 1170.95 does not provide relief to defendants convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
- relied: People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 — A defendant convicted of manslaughter by plea is ineligible for section 1170.95 relief and the limitation does not deny equal protection.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached the correct result under the statute as it existed in 2021 and cited the uniform body of published appellate authority rejecting both the statutory and equal protection arguments. It provided no independent analysis, however, instead incorporating Turner by reference, so the opinion does not itself engage with the appellant's specific contentions about why those decisions were wrongly decided.
Opinion
Filed 8/4/21 P. v. Polson CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D078158
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF32385)
ANN MARIE POLSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Marco Nunez, Judge. Affirmed. Cliff Gardner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2014, Ann Marie Polson pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted the use of a firearm (Pen. Code,1 §§ 192, subd. (a) and 12022.5) as part of a plea agreement. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The court sentenced Polson to a determinate term of 21 years in prison. In 2020, Polson filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. In her petition, Polson alleged she pleaded guilty to manslaughter to avoid a conviction for murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, and then denied the petition on the grounds her conviction for manslaughter rendered Polson ineligible for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437. Polson filed a timely notice of appeal. In her appeal, Polson argues even though section 1170.95 relief is specifically predicated on a conviction for first or second degree murder, we should read the statute to impliedly include conviction for manslaughter based on pleas entered to avoid a trial on improper theories of liability for murder. She further argues to reject her contention would result in a denial of equal protection. Polson acknowledges that all the opinions of the appellate courts thus far have rejected all of her arguments. She contends that all of those opinions were wrongly decided. As we will explain, we are satisfied the appellate decisions have correctly rejected the arguments Polson is making now. We will follow the 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 unanimous opinions of this court and the other courts that have analyzed the issues.2 DISCUSSION Polson makes two arguments in support of her contention her guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter makes her eligible for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 and section 1170.95. She contends proper statutory interpretation would lead to the conclusion the Legislature intended cases such as hers would qualify for relief, even though the specific language of the statute conditions relief on prior conviction for murder. She further argues denial of her petition for relief would deprive her of equal protection. All the published opinions of the Courts of Appeal have soundly rejected both arguments. (People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194, 203; People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884, 887; People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 438 (Turner); People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557, 569-570, review granted Apr. 21, 2021, S267529; People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 916; People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 993.) In Turner, this court discussed the same arguments as are presented here. Like the other courts that have addressed the issues, we squarely rejected the arguments. We will not repeat the analysis we conducted in Turner. Rather, for the reasons expressed by this court in Turner, we again reject the contention that a plea of guilty to manslaughter in order to avoid a murder trial qualifies the defendant for resentencing under section 1170.95. On the record before us, Polson is not eligible for resentencing as a matter of law, and the trial court properly denied her petition.
2 The facts of the offense are not material to the issue presented here. We will omit the traditional statement of facts. 3 DISPOSITION The order denying Polson’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
GUERRERO, J.