1

Filed 3/23/21 P. v. Holland CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THADIUS JAVON HOLLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

E075118

(Super.Ct.No. INF1100662)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. 

Affirmed.

Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Warren J. 

Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2011, defendant and appellant Thadius Javon Holland pleaded guilty to two 

counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and a firearm enhancement. In 2019, 
2

he sought resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 (section 1170.95), a 

statute recently enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437). The trial court 

denied Holland’s petition, finding that the record of conviction established he was not 

entitled to relief. We affirm.

Senate Bill 1437 “amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not 

imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was 

not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to 

human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Section 1170.95 “provides a 

procedure by which those convicted of murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes 

in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions.” (People v. Larios (2019) 

42 Cal.App.5th 956, 964.)

The trial court is not limited to the allegations of the petition when determining 

whether the petitioner has stated a prima facie claim for relief under section 1170.95. 

Rather, the trial court can consider the defendant’s record of conviction and the court’s 

own file in determining eligibility. (People v. Law (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 811, 820-821, 

review granted July 8, 2020, S262490; People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 

329-330, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493; People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 

1128, 1137-1138, review granted March 18, 2010, S260598.) 

Holland’s record of conviction demonstrates that he admitted to being the actual 

killer as part of his guilty plea. The reporter’s transcript of his change of plea hearing
3

includes his admission that he personally fired a gun at a rival gang member, causing a 

car crash that killed the intended victim’s mother and her friend.1 As a matter of law, 

therefore, he is not entitled to relief under Senate Bill 1437, and his section 1170.95 

petition was properly denied.

Holland’s arguments on appeal rest on the circumstance that the reporter’s 

transcript of the change of plea hearing was not, at the time he submitted his opening 

brief, a part of the appellate record. The relevant aspect of Holland’s record of 

conviction, however, was undisputed. The prosecutor represented to the trial court that 

he had obtained the transcript of Holland’s change of plea hearing, and that it “shows 

he’s the actual killer.” The prosecution had shared the transcript with the defense, and 

defense counsel conceded that the prosecutor’s characterization of the factual basis of 

Holland’s plea was correct.2 Holland has proposed no reason why the trial court was not 

1

Holland admitted as part of the factual basis of his plea that he had been driving 

down a street when he saw the rival gang member driving in the opposite lane of traffic. 

Holland “saw an opportunity and willfully fired [his] gun with premeditation and 

deliberation, attempting to kill” the rival gang member. The rival gang member, “in an 

effort to avoid being shot, took evasive maneuvers and lost control of his vehicle, which 

led to him crashing, killing his mother . . . and her friend . . . who were passengers in his 

vehicle and not gang members . . . .”

2

The following is the discussion of the issue between the parties and the court:

“[Prosecutor]: I have a copy of the actual plea transcript that I have shared with the 

defense that shows he’s the actual killer.

“[Defense counsel]: Defense objects for the record.

“The Court: Do you take issue with the prosecutor’s characterization of the plea 

transcript?

“[Defense Counsel]: No, your Honor.”
4

entitled to rely on the agreement of the parties regarding the contents of the record of 

conviction. 

Moreover, the transcript of the change of plea hearing has since been added to our 

record. Our review of the transcript confirms the parties’ characterization of it to the trial 

court. If the trial court erred by relying on the parties’ agreement regarding the substance 

of Holland’s admissions, or by failing to require the prosecution to include the transcript 

of the plea hearing in the trial court record, the error was harmless under any standard for 

determining prejudice.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the order denying Holland’s section 1170.95 petition.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAPHAEL

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MENETREZ

J.