Court Opinion

ID: 9840922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 17:04:11.131605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:57.129223
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Monroe CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097863

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 10F05343)

           v.

 D'ANDRE LEON MONROE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         A jury found defendant D’Andre Leon Monroe guilty of second degree murder
and shooting at an inhabited house. The jury also found true several firearm
enhancement allegations, including that defendant personally and intentionally
discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death. The jury acquitted a codefendant of
murdering the victim and shooting at an inhabited house but found him guilty of
discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner. The trial court sentenced defendant
to 15 years to life in prison for the murder, a consecutive 25 years to life for the personal
discharge allegation, and a stayed term for the shooting at an inhabited house.

                                                             1
       In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section
1172.6.1 After the trial court issued an order to show cause and held a hearing, it denied
defendant’s petition, concluding defendant personally killed the victim. Appellate
counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216 and requesting we exercise our discretion to review the record for
arguable issues on appeal. Defendant filed a supplemental brief.
       Having considered the three specific issues raised in defendant’s supplemental
brief, we affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition.
                                      DISCUSSION
       First defendant asserts that his sentence enhancement should be dismissed
pursuant to section 1385 following passage of Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.).
“In 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 81 [(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)], which
amended section 1385 to specify factors that the trial court must consider when deciding
whether to strike enhancements from a defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice.”
(People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 674, citing Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1.) These
amendments are not retroactive; section 1385, subdivision (c) “shall apply to all
sentencings occurring after January 1, 2022.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(7).) Defendant was
sentenced in 2014, years before these changes to section 1385 became effective.
       Second defendant asserts entitlement to sentencing relief under “Assembly Bill
[No.] 1310.” As of this writing, this proposed legislation has neither been passed by the
Legislature nor signed by the Governor.

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. Defendant petitioned
for resentencing under former section 1170.95. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature
renumbered former section 1170.95 as section 1172.6 without substantive changes.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                              2
        Third defendant asserts entitlement to sentencing relief under Assembly Bill
No. 2942 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). That legislation amended a recall and resentencing
provision in former subdivision (d) of section 1170 to authorize district attorneys to be
included among those who may recommend recall and resentencing (Stats. 2018, ch.
1001, § 1), authorization now found in section 1172.1. The change affected by this
legislation is not factually implicated here.
        Having addressed the specific contentions raised in defendant’s supplemental
brief, our review is complete. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222,
232.)
                                      DISPOSITION
        The trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

                                                     /s/
                                                    MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
EARL, P. J.

 /s/
HULL, J.

                                                3