Error and/or relief:
The court erred by denying defendant’s petition in violation of his constitutional right to be present at the evidentiary hearing. The order denying defendant’s petition is reversed. The matter is remanded for the trial court to conduct a new evidentiary hearing with defendant’s presence or with a valid waiver.
First Holding:
Sentencing and resentencing hearings are critical stages in a criminal proceeding. Courts have consistently held that a defendant has a right to be present at proceedings that are ‘akin to a plenary sentencing hearing. This includes proceedings necessary to determine factual questions bearing on the defendant’s eligibility for resentencing. The defendant’s presence significantly contributes to the fairness of the hearing as a matter of due process. Indeed, the court’s decision at the evidentiary hearing may well turn on disputed issues of fact about which the defendant—as a participant in the events in question—may well have had something to say.
Authority:
People v. Quan (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 524, 532–534
People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 59
Second Holding:
If a defendant was not present at the evidentiar] hearing, the reviewing court must determine whether his or her absence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Quan (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 524, 536
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24
Third Holding:
In line with Basler, Quan, and Jackson, we cannot say defendant’s absence from the hearing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Quan (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 524,
People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46,
People v. Jackson (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 128,
Fourth Holding:
In Basler, the court noted that the entire purpose of the resentencing hearing was for the court to consider whether to vacate the defendant’s conviction and recall the defendant’s sentence, including by reviewing the record and taking new evidence, if offered, on the issue of the defendant’s actions and mens rea.
For example, the defendant may have given input to his counsel on the People’s presentation and arguments, resulting in his counsel drawing different inferences from the trial evidence. Although the trial court may, or may not, have chosen to believe what the defendant might have said, if he said anything, the reviewing court could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that his presence at the hearing would not have affected the outcome.
Further, a defendant’s decision not to testify at trial is not dispositive on the prejudice suffered by his absence at the section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing, particularly given the new focus on a defendant’s mental state and the court’s ability to consider new or additional evidence on the point.
Authority:
People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 59-60
Fifth Holding:
In Quan, the court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that depriving the defendant of the right to be present at the section 1172.6 hearing was harmless. The court noted the prosecution had the burden of establishing the defendant’s reckless indifference to life, which had an objective and subjective component. Thus, if the defendant was present, he could have addressed what he knew of his confederates willingness to kill in furtherance of their objectives, or the other relevant components of the crime.
Authority:
People v. Quan (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 524, 536-537
Sixth Holding:
In Jackson, the court held remand was necessary partly because of the difficulty of evaluating trial records that are often decades old in the light of significant legal changes. The court explained that the arguments of counsel and the presence of the defendant can be critical to judges deciding these issues and to the fairness of the proceeding for the defendant. Where factual and legal issues must be resolved, a hearing enables the court to inform counsel and the parties of its tentative thoughts and allows them, in turn, to respond and potentially to present a different point of view, about both the significance of the evidence and how the law applies to it.
Authority:
People v. Jackson (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 128, 153