Filed 10/25/22 P. v. Richardson CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIE RICHARDSON III,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A161794

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. 05-000409-3)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Defendant Willie Richardson III was convicted of two counts of 

attempted murder after a jury trial. In 2020, he petitioned for resentencing

under former Penal Code2 section 1170.95, renumbered section 1172.6.3 The 

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California 

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1 because this appeal “is 

determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for 

unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of 

interpretation or application.” In addition, the parties apparently agree the 

matter must be remanded for further proceedings. 

2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

3 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 

1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10, eff. June 30, 2022; 

Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)
2

trial court summarily denied his petition and Richardson appealed. After the 

matter was fully briefed in this court, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 

775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 775), which extended section 1172.6 

to persons convicted of attempted murder. For reasons discussed in this 

opinion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with 

section 1172.6. 

BACKGROUND

We do not recite any facts of the underlying crime as there are no facts 

available to us in the record on appeal and the only issue in the case is one of 

pure statutory law. 

Defendant was charged by information filed on April 4, 2000, with two 

counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a)/664, subd. (a), counts 1 and 2); 

carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a), count 3); first degree robbery (count 4: 

§§ 211/212.5, subd. (a)); assault with a deadly weapon likely to produce great 

bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 5); and kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, 

subd. (b), count 6). The information also charged multiple enhancements for 

intentionally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury, personal use 

of a firearm, personally inflicting great bodily harm, and committing offenses 

while on bail and on own recognizance. After a jury trial, defendant was 

found guilty of both counts of attempted murder, carjacking, assault with a 

deadly weapon, and kidnapping. Several enhancements were found true, 

including that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm 

causing great bodily injury in the commission of the attempted murders, 

carjacking, and kidnapping. He was acquitted of residential robbery. He was 

sentenced to life on count one with a sentence of 25-years-to-life for the 

firearm enhancement. The sentences on the other counts were made 

concurrent or stayed. 
3

On June 15, 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under 

former section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant

failed to state a prima facie case for relief because resentencing relief was not 

available for attempted murder convictions under the former statute. 

Defendant timely appealed. 

After defendant filed his appeal, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 

775, which amended former section 1170.95 to permit persons convicted of 

attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of felony murder or the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition for resentencing. 

(Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)

In its respondent’s brief on appeal, the Attorney General noted Senate 

Bill 775 would become effective on January 1, 2022, and requested we stay 

the appeal and remand to the trial court to consider, after that date, whether 

defendant is entitled to relief under Senate Bill 775. In his reply brief, 

defendant agreed. On December 8, 2021, we issued a stay, remanding the 

matter to the trial court with directions to consider, after January 1, 2022, 

whether Senate Bill 775 altered its conclusion defendant was not entitled to 

relief. We directed the parties to provide status reports to this court every 90 

days thereafter. 

After three rounds of status reports, the matter still has not been 

determined on remand. On September 22, 2022, this court issued a request 

for supplemental briefing, asking the parties to address whether, in light of 

the substantial length of time the case has been pending, we should dismiss 

the appeal as moot without prejudice to defendant’s right to reassert any 

claims raised in the present appeal. Defendant filed a supplemental letter 

brief arguing the case is not moot and urging this court to reverse the 

judgment and remand for further proceedings as other courts have done in 
4

similar cases. (See, e.g., People v. Whitson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 22, 33, 36; 

People v. Porter (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 644, 652–653.) The Attorney General 

filed no supplemental brief or response and apparently does not object to such 

a resolution of this appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) “ ‘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.’ ” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.) It 

also added former section 1170.95, which “provid[ed] a procedure for 

convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to 

retroactively seek relief.” (Ibid.) 

Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 775 amended former section 

1170.95 (now section 1172.6) to permit defendants convicted of attempted 

murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to petition for 

resentencing. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, §§ 1, subd. (a), 2.) Defendant’s appeal 

was not final as of that date, so he is entitled to the benefit of the new 

provisions in section 1172.6. (People v. Porter, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 

652.) Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We 

express no opinion on how the petition should ultimately be resolved.4

4 In light of our resolution of this appeal, we do not address the parties’ 

arguments raised in their briefs on appeal as to whether defendant’s petition 

is facially deficient. Based on information contained in the parties’ status 

reports, this issue may be moot in any event because defendant has filed an 

amended petition in the trial court as we stated in our stay order he was 

entitled to do. 
5

DISPOSITION

The stay issued December 8, 2021 is dissolved. The trial court’s order 

summarily denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is reversed. The 

matter is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings in 

accordance with section 1172.6. 
6

_________________________

Margulies, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Humes, P. J. 

_________________________

Banke, J.

A161794