Filed 3/27/23 P. v. Woolen CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.11 15. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, B324099 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA070163) v. MICHAEL SHABOYA WOOLEN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teresa P. Magno, Judge. Affirmed. Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 I On May 24, 2003, defendant and appellant Michael Shaboya Woolen was walking with his cousin. The two men had a brief conversation during which Woolen told his cousin that he needed him to do something for him. His cousin replied that he would not do anything that would violate his morals. Woolen then shot his cousin in the head; the cousin survived. An August 12, 2003, information charged Woolen with attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (Pen. Code,2 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664,) and alleged he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). It further alleged that he had a serious prior felony conviction within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (b) and 1170.12 and that he had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). A jury convicted Woolen of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder and found true the firearm enhancement. At a court trial on the prior conviction allegations, the court found that Woolen had served three prior prison terms. The court sentenced him to life in prison for attempted murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, and three years for the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison terms. 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Amin., § 8.1(1).) 2 Unless otherwise specified, subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 In 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) which “eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony-murder rule.” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.) The legislation also enacted former section 1170.95 3 which provided a mechanism for defendants previously convicted of murder, but who could not be convicted of murder under the law as amended, to petition for the court to vacate their convictions and resentence them. In 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) which, among other changes, extended the application of then-section 1170.95 to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals