Court Opinion

ID: 9906376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 21:02:23.914214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:18.699551
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/1/23 P. v. Sneed CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

                      SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,                                              B324270

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                       (Los Angeles County
                                                          Super. Ct. No. TA137551)
          v.

 VERSHONDA SNEED,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Patrick Connolly, Judge. Affirmed.
      Richard B. Lennon and David Andreasen, under
appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, and Charles S. Lee and Michael C.
Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      A jury convicted defendant and appellant Vershonda Sneed
(defendant) of first degree murder for fatally shooting Bobby King
(King). After intervening changes in California law defining
murder, defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code
section 1172.6 (former Penal Code section 1170.95).1 Without
permitting the parties to file the briefs contemplated by section
1172.6, subdivision (c), the trial court summarily denied
defendant’s petition because she was King’s actual killer. We are
asked to decide whether this was prejudicial error.

                        I. BACKGROUND
       A.    The Offense Conduct
       King and defendant started out as close friends, but their
relationship deteriorated over time and defendant came to
believe that King was arrogant and selfish. In May of 2015,
defendant blocked King on her cell phone after he threatened to
kill her when the two were arguing.
       The following month, defendant met with her friends
Shawnta Sawyers (Sawyers) and Tyshonda Marie Powell (Powell)
at the home of Sawyers’ sister. Sawyers, who had dated King,
was on the phone with King when defendant arrived; she told
King defendant was there. Later, while the women were outside
the home talking in the driveway, King arrived. When King
approached the women, defendant pointed a gun at him and shot

1
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.

                                2
him eight times—killing him. Defendant and Powell then fled
the scene, but they were quickly apprehended.2

       B.    Defendant’s Criminal Trial
       Defendant testified at her later trial in 2016 and admitted
she shot King. She claimed, however, that she killed him in self-
defense. She testified she believed King was a member of a gang,
carried a firearm, and had “something chrome” in his hand when
he approached the women on the night of the shooting.
       The jury did not believe defendant’s claim to have acted in
self-defense and convicted her of first degree murder. The jury
also found true an associated sentencing enhancement for
personally and intentionally discharging a firearm causing great
bodily injury or death (Pen. Code,3 § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The
trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life in state prison:
25 years to life for the murder and a consecutive 25 years to life
for the aforementioned firearm enhancement. On direct appeal,
this court affirmed the conviction but remanded to allow the trial
court to decide whether to strike the firearm enhancement in
furtherance of justice (People v. Sneed (Jan. 18, 2018, B276525)
[nonpub. opn.] (Sneed I)), which the trial court later opted not to
do.

2
      Powell was charged as an accessory after the fact, but the
jury was unable to reach a verdict.
3
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.

                                 3
       C.    Defendant’s Section 1172.6 Petition
       Defendant filed a section 1172.6 form petition for
resentencing in 2022. Before providing the parties an
opportunity to brief whether defendant was entitled to relief, the
trial court summarily denied the petition. As the court explained
it, “The appellate opinion affirming the petitioner’s conviction
and sentence reflects that the petitioner was the actual killer and
was convicted of murder on a theory of being the direct
perpetrator and not on a theory of felony murder of any degree, or
a theory of natural and probable consequences.”

                            II. DISCUSSION
       The Attorney General concedes the trial court should have
permitted the parties to file briefs in connection with defendant’s
section 1172.6 petition (§ 1172.6, subd. (c)) but contends the
decision to deny the petition without briefing was harmless
because the record establishes defendant is ineligible for relief as
a matter of law: she was King’s actual killer, and the jury was not
instructed on felony murder, the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, or any other theory that would permit
imputing malice. That is how we see the matter. (People v.
Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52 [“if the record shows that
the jury was not instructed on either the natural and probable
consequences or felony-murder doctrines, then the petitioner is
ineligible for relief as a matter of law”]; People v. Lopez (2022) 78
Cal.App.5th 1, 14 [“A petitioner is ineligible for resentencing as a
matter of law if the record of conviction conclusively establishes,
with no factfinding, weighing of evidence, or credibility
determinations, that . . . the petitioner was the actual
killer . . . ”].) Reversal is, accordingly, unwarranted. (See People

                                 4
v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 974 [to obtain reversal, a
petitioner whose petition is denied before an order to show cause
issues must demonstrate it is reasonably probable the petition
would not have been summarily denied absent error].)

                            DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order denying defendant’s section 1172.6
petition for resentencing is affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                       BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

      MOOR, J.

      KIM, J.

                                 5