WOODLAND – A resentencing hearing for Greg Zielesch concluded this week without further argument as Yolo County Superior Court Judge Dan Wolk issued a ruling that the first-degree murder conviction could not stand under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Judge Wolk determined that a second-degree murder conviction remains valid based on aiding and abetting implied malice murder.
Zielesch was originally convicted in connection with the 2005 shooting death of California Highway Patrol Officer Andy Stevens.
Prosecutors argued that Zielesch supplied the firearm and assisted co-defendant Brendt Volarvich, who ultimately shot and killed Stevens during a traffic stop. The conviction was based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, with jurors concluding Zielesch assisted in a conspiracy that led to the killing.
Zielesch, however, has long maintained his innocence. In correspondence sent to the Vanguard in 2017, he asserted that he was wrongfully convicted.
The actual shooter, Volarvich, also wrote a letter—provided to the Vanguard and dated July 2017—in which he took sole responsibility for the killing and stated that Zielesch did not aid or assist him in the shooting.
In the handwritten statement, Volarvich asserted that Zielesch is “an innocent man” serving time for the crime and that he acted alone.
During the resentencing hearing, Judge Wolk stated, “the people conceded at our last hearing, the so-called penal code 1172.6 hearing that petitioner’s first degree murder conviction as to Officer Stevens in count one cannot stand.”
He added that “the court does find beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty under the still valid theory of aiding and abetting implied malice murder, which is of course murder of the second degree, not first.”
Deputy District Attorney Garrett Hamilton argued that despite the court’s ruling, the statute requires the conviction remain listed as first degree.
Hamilton told the court, “It stays as a first, even though he’s only provably guilty of a second now. The case law clearly says you don’t change the degree of murder, you just leave the first there as long as they were provably guilty of a second.”
Public Defender Ron Johnson disagreed with the judge’s overall ruling but said he believed there may be additional legal avenues to argue for resentencing.
“I’m not sure the court is able to reduce the first and the second,” Johnson said. He later noted that resentencing could occur “via habeas petition.”
Zielesch is currently eligible for parole under a senior provision, but he seeks to remove the murder count from his record.
Johnson reiterated his disagreement with the ruling and indicated that the cases cited by the court were not applicable and could be challenged.
Judge Wolk acknowledged Hamilton’s position and said he would review the case law Hamilton referenced.
Hamilton told the court, “I’ve known that for a couple of years now and I can easily get that to the court.”
With both sides intending to review the issue further and the question of whether the conviction degree can be changed unresolved, Judge Wolk set a return date. The court will reconvene January 21 to determine how to proceed.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Correction – I wrote 2002 shooting, that was a typo, the shooting occurred in November 2005