Page 3
California Supreme Court:
Preliminary Hearing Transcript May Be Used at Resentencing
Resolving Split, Opinion Says Record of Conviction May Be Relied Upon to Refute Defendant’s Prima Facie Showing, Petitioner Must Offer More Than Bare-Bones Checklist Averring Eligibility to Contradict Such Evidence
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court held yesterday—in a decision that resolves a split in authority among the courts of appeal—that a preliminary hearing transcript may be relied upon by a judge at a prima facie resentencing hearing to determine eligibility for relief if the defendant fails to assert any factual or legal theory to contradict it, even if the petitioner never stipulated to the contents.
Also deciding that a petitioner, faced with a record demonstrating that his conviction remains valid under current law, bears the burden at the prima facie stage of coming forward with something more than mere conclusory allegations, the court found that a standard checklist asserting entitlement to resentencing is insufficient.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Martin J. Jenkins said:
“We reach, then, the issue presented here. May a court, in determining at the prima facie stage whether a petitioner was convicted under a now-invalid theory, rely on unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations, or would that constitute impermissible judicial factfinding? As we explain, a court may do so.”
At issue is Senate Bill 1437, effective as of Jan. 1, 2019, which limits the malice required for murder liability such that an aider and abettor of a lesser crime may no longer be found guilty for a killing committed by an associate based on the theory that the death was a natural and probable consequence of the other criminal acts.
As part of the legislative scheme, Penal Code §1172.6 sets forth procedures for defendants convicted of murder and attempted murder under a now-defunct theory to seek resentencing. Under the section, a defendant must show that the charging document allowed the prosecution to proceed under a natural and probable consequences theory and that there was a conviction of murder or attempted murder under a now-invalid principle.
A petitioner who files a “facially sufficient” petition is entitled to counsel and the prosecution must respond to the filing by submitting a reply as to whether a prima facie case for relief exists. A judge will then hold an initial hearing to determine whether the accused has made a prima facie case for relief.
If there is a determination that a prima facie showing has been made, full evidentiary hearing will be held at which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of the crime under current law.
Attempted Murder Conviction
Appealing his conviction was Ramon Patton, who was charged with attempted murder relating to the May 2017 shooting of David Jackson at a Los Angeles-area motel. At the preliminary hearing, police officers recounted watching surveillance footage showing a single shooter, recognized by those testifying as Patton.
He pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 29 years in prison.
In 2022, Patton filed a §1172.6 petition for resentencing using a pre-printed form developed by the Office of the State Public Defender.
On the document, he checked boxes indicating that he met the statutory conditions for relief, requested court-appointed counsel, and declared that the statements were true “under penalty of perjury” except for any “legal conclusions.” He offered no specific facts in support of the checked statements indicating that he was convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Hector Gutierrez deemed the petition facially sufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel. The prosecutors submitted a written response in which they argued that Patton could not make a prima facie case for relief, referencing the preliminary hearing transcript which they asserted shows that he was convicted under a direct perpetrator theory of attempted murder and so is not entitled to resentencing.
Gutierrez agreed with the prosecution and denied the petition. On appeal, Div. Three of the Court of Appeal for this district affirmed, reasoning that Gutierrez properly considered the preliminary hearing transcript and that the record foreclosed Patton’s entitlement to relief given the fact that the petitioner never offered any affirmative theory to support an implicit contention that he was an accomplice or did not himself shoot Jackson.
Varied Guidance
Jenkins noted that “[o]ur Courts of Appeal have offered varied guidance on the role of preliminary hearing transcripts at the prima facie stage of resentencing proceedings” and cited cases finding that a court may rely on such evidence to deny resentencing relief at the prima facie stage only if the defendant has stipulated to facts contained in the record.
He pointed to other decisions holding that when the prosecution introduces uncontroverted evidence from the transcript showing that a defendant acted alone, and the petitioner does not offer any contrary factual or legal theory, a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief has not been made.
Addressing the disagreement, Jenkins wrote:
“[T]he record of conviction the parties may consult at the prima facie stage includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea…We have, to be sure, placed limits on the use of preliminary hearing transcripts to prove disputed facts, but these limits are inapplicable here….Rather than resolving a contested factual dispute, statements within Patton’s preliminary hearing transcript contributed specific factual assertions about his conviction—namely, that it was premised on him being the sole shooter. Patton’s conclusory checkbox allegations alone could not create a factual dispute about whether he played a meaningfully different role in the attempted murder.”
He continued:
“To the extent courts of appeal have conditioned use of preliminary hearing transcripts at the prima facie stage on whether a defendant, when pleading guilty, stipulated to the transcript or its contents, they have overlooked the issue framing role a transcript can play at the prima facie stage of the resentencing process….The absence of such a stipulation during an earlier plea colloquy does not eliminate this role.”
In a footnote, Jenkins declared that “[w]e disapprove the [Court of Appeal] decisions to the extent they conditioned the use of preliminary hearing transcripts on whether a petitioner previously admitted the truth of testimony contained therein or stipulated to the transcript as the factual basis of a plea.”
Not Always Refute
Acknowledging that a preliminary hearing transcript may not always refute the allegations in the petition, he remarked:
“[P]etitioners 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. It follows…that should a trial court encounter a material fact dispute, the court may not resolve that dispute at the prima facie stage and should instead grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing, assuming relief is not otherwise foreclosed.”
By way of example, Jenkins said that a dispute regarding the basis for the conviction may arise if the petitioner points to specific facts that identify someone else as the direct perpetrator. However, he concluded:
“[A]bsent specific facts, no such dispute arises, as Patton asserts, from mere latent, speculative possibilities; that is, a hypothetical alternate direct perpetrator cannot be conjured from thin air or a legal conclusion.”
He opined:
“Patton’s petition contains only a checkbox declaration with legal conclusions, he submitted no reply, and he made no argument when invited to do so at the prima facie hearing. After determining the facial validity of a resentencing petition and before ordering an evidentiary hearing, a trial court may properly, at the prima facie stage, reference the record of conviction to [counter] conclusory allegations in furtherance of its statutorily required screening function at that juncture of a section 1172.6 proceeding. The Court of Appeal correctly concluded this is not impermissible factfinding and correctly concluded Patton had not, on the record before it, made a prima facie showing.”
Jenkins added:
“In light of Patton’s request at oral argument, however, to be permitted to plead additional facts on remand should we affirm, we—out of an abundance of caution—will order a remand to the superior court with directions for that court to consider an amended petition should Patton, within 30 days of that remand, seek to file one.”
The case is People v. Patton, 2025 S.O.S. 521.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company