Filed 3/8/22 P. v. Sloan CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B309076 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A970093-02) v. MELVIN SLOAN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Larry P. Fidler, Judge. Affirmed. Boyce & Schaefer and Robert E. Boyce, under appointment 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, Idan Ivri and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________ Defendant and appellant Melvin Frezell Sloan appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for vacatur of his murder conviction and resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437) and Penal Code section 1170.95, 1 following an order to show cause and hearing pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3). On appeal, Sloan argued that: (1) he was entitled to mandatory resentencing under section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(2); (2) the trial court erred by denying his petition without holding a section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3) hearing; (3) the trial court erred by employing the substantial evidence standard; (4) this court should conduct an independent review of the trial court’s ruling; and (5) there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s ruling. The People challenged all of Sloan’s contentions. On October 5, 2021, before the briefing was completed in this matter, the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, §§ 1–2) (Senate Bill 775) which, effective January 1, 2022, amends section 1170.95. We invited the parties to file supplemental briefing regarding the effect, if any, of Senate Bill 775 on Sloan’s case, in light of the fact that his appeal would still be pending when the legislation went into effect. (See People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 306 [“‘[F]or the purpose of determining the retroactive application of an amendment to a criminal statute, a judgment is not final until the time for petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court has passed’”].) 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 In his supplemental brief, Sloan argues that Senate Bill 775: (1) limits the evidence that a court may consider as part of the record of conviction to evidence introduced at trial and the procedural history contained in prior appellate opinions; and (2) reaffirms that the standard the trial court is to apply is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” not “substantial evidence.” The People respond that, even assuming that Senate Bill 775 applies retroactively to Sloan’s …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals