Error and/or relief
The defendant was not foreclosed from filing a new petition for recall of his sentence under section 1172.6. The matter is remanded with directions to the court to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d).
First Holding:
Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 altered the substantive law of murder in two areas.
First, the bill narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule so that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a specified felony in which a death occurs can be liable for murder only if (1) the person was the actual killer, or (2) the person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree, or (3) the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Second, the bill eliminated liability for murder as an aider and abettor under the natural and probable consequences doctrine by requiring that, except in cases of felony murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder. Now, malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.
Additionally, SB 1437 added section what is now 1172.6, to provide a procedure for those convicted of a qualifying offense to seek relief where the two substantive changes described above affect a defendant’s conviction. Under section 1172.6, an offender seeking resentencing must first file a petition in the sentencing court, and the sentencing court must determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief. If the sentencing court determines the petitioner has made a prima facie showing, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction.
Authority:
SB 1437
PEN 188(a)
PEN 189(e)
PEN 1172.6
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449
People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457, 467–468
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
Second Holding:
In general, whether a prior finding will be given conclusive effect in a later proceeding is governed by the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. This doctrine bars relitigation of issues earlier decided only if several threshold requirements are fulfilled.
First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding.
Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding.
Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding.
Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits.
Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements.
Authority:
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 715
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 452
Third Holding:
Even if the threshold requirements are satisfied, the doctrine will not be applied if such application would not serve its underlying fundamental principles of promoting efficiency while ensuring fairness to the parties. One well-settled equitable exception to the general rule of issue preclusion holds that preclusion does not apply when there has been a significant change in the law since the factual findings were rendered that warrants reexamination of the issue.
This exception ensures basic fairness by allowing for relitigation where the change in the law is such that preclusion would result in a manifestly inequitable administration of the laws. It also reflects a recognition that in the face of this sort of legal change, the equitable policies that underlie the doctrine of issue preclusion–preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, promotion of judicial economy, and protection of litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation—are at an ebb.
Authority:
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 716
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 454
Fourth Holding:
We independently review a trial court’s issue preclusion ruling.
Authority:
People v. Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1238–1239
Fifth Holding:
In 2022, after the rulings on the defendant’s initial petitions, the law changed. As relevant here, section 1172.6 was amended, effective January 1, 2022, so as to provide that, at the hearing to determine whether the defendant is entitled to relief, the court may consider the procedural history of the case recited in any prior appellate opinion. Subsequently, multiple Courts of Appeal interpreted this provision to prohibit a trial court from considering the factual summary in a prior appellate opinion, even at the prima facie stage. This is a significant and relevant change in the law.
Authority:
People v. Bratton (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1113
People v. Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1238
People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1183
Sixth Holding:
The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry, allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless. However, the prima facie inquiry is limited. At this stage, a court must accept as true a petitioner’s allegation that he or she could not currently be convicted of a homicide offense because of changes to section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019, unless the allegation is refuted by the record. And this allegation is not refuted by the record unless the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense.
A court should not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.
Authority:
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463
Seventh Holding:
We independently review a trial court’s decision to deny a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage.
Authority:
People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 121
Eighth Holding:
The defendant has prima facie established that he is eligible for relief because of the changes made to sections 188 and 189, and the record of conviction shows that both he and another individual were charged with murdering the victim. This alone is ordinarily enough to establish a prima facie case. Here, there is nothing in the record of conviction that demonstrates the defendant is ineligible for relief.
Authority:
People v. Mares (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1158, 1173 [If a defendant who faced a murder charge before SB 1437 pled guilty and the record contains any indication he had an accomplice who may have been the killer, a prima facie case ordinarily would be readily established, even by conclusory assertions in a form petition]
People v. Muhammad (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 268, 280 [same]
Ninth Holding:
The charging document did not specify any particular theory of first degree murder, nor did it need to. Only a single statutory offense of murder exists. It has long been the law in this state that an accusatory pleading charging murder need not specify the manner in which the murder was committed. Nor does an accusatory pleading need to specify the theory of murder on which the prosecution relies at trial. Specifically, neither felony murder nor murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine need be separately pleaded. Accordingly, the complaint allowed the prosecutor to proceed under now-invalid theories.
Authority:
People v. Estrada (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 328, 338
People v. Muhammad (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 268, 277
TENTH Holding:
The People refer to the probation report to establish that the defendant is not eligible. But it is not clear that the probation report can even be considered at this stage of the proceeding. The People have not cited a single case, nor are we aware of one, holding that a probation report is part of the record of conviction that can be considered at the prima facie stage. In fact, while in a different context, courts have held otherwise.
Authority:
People v. Burnes (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1458 [A probation report ordinarily is not part of the record of conviction]