Error and/or relief
Though the trial court did not err in concluding that the defendant’s bare assertions of eligibility for relief in his petition to recall his sentence under section 1172.6 were belied by the record of conviction, the matter was remanded to the trial court to give the defendant the opportunity to file an amended petition.
First Holding:
Senate Bill No. 1437 amended the statutes defining malice (section 188) and felony murder (section 189, subd. (e)) to eliminate natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limit the scope of the felony-murder rule. It also added former section 1170.95, which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 amended section 1170.95 to extend the resentencing procedures to a person convicted under any other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. Former section 1170.95 has since been renumbered as section 1172.6, with no substantive changes.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957
Second Holding:
If a section 1172.6 petition contains all required information (e.g., declaration of eligibility, case information, any request for appointed counsel), the trial court must review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of section 1172.6. If the petitioner has made this initial prima facie showing, he or she is entitled to appointed counsel, if requested, and the prosecutor must file a response, and the petitioner may file a reply. The court then reviews the petition a second time. If it concludes in light of this briefing that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, it must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts.
Authority:
People v. Roldan (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 997, 1003
Third Holding:
When conducting the prima facie review, the trial court must assume the truth of the petition’s allegations unless they are refuted by the record of conviction. If a petition is supported only by conclusory, checkbox allegations and the preliminary hearing transcript contains unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts, then the trial court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage. This is because a section 1172.6 petitioner who, despite having access to counsel upon submission of a facially sufficient petition, offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing.
Authority:
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 564-566
Fourth Holding:
However, petitioners need not, at the prima facie stage, meet an evidentiary burden of proof to establish entitlement to relief, such as the burden of proof applicable to the People if trying to defeat relief at the later section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) evidentiary hearing. Rather, petitioners confronting a record of conviction that demonstrates relief is unavailable have the burden of coming forward with nonconclusory allegations to alert the prosecution and the court to what issues an evidentiary hearing would entail.
Authority:
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 566-567
Fifth Holding:
We review de novo whether the record of conviction establishes that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing relief.
Authority:
People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14
Sixth Holding:
The court properly considered the preliminary hearing transcript to make a prima facie determination that defendant was the actual killer and thus ineligible for resentencing.
Authority:
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563
Seventh Holding:
Defendant requests that, if we affirm, we should remand with directions to afford him 30 days to amend his petition to plead additional facts. Because defendant did not have the benefit of Patton’s guidance during the prima facie stage before the trial court, we grant his request.
Authority:
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 569-570
People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 930