People v. Pacheco CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FVA1200768-3
- Trial judge
- Ingrid Adamson Uhler
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with instructions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Michele M. Castillo (author), Judith D. McConnell, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court summarily denied Pacheco's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 by taking judicial notice of his admission at a codefendant's hearing that he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage by relying on evidence outside the record of conviction.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“By taking judicial notice of the transcript, the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding using evidence outside Pacheco’s record of conviction. (Lewis, 11 Cal.5th at p. 972.)” | de novo | error | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the standard from People v. Lewis, which prohibits factfinding at the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 proceeding. The trial court's reliance on a transcript from a different proceeding (the codefendant's hearing) constitutes evidence outside the record of conviction, which is impermissible at this stage. Furthermore, under People v. Eynon, a guilty plea to murder with premeditation and deliberation does not conclusively establish ineligibility for relief if the defendant did not admit to acting with personal malice aforethought. Therefore, the trial court's denial was legally erroneous. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — The court may not engage in factfinding at the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 proceeding.
- relied: People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 — The court must accept the petitioner's assertions as true and may only deny a petition at the prima facie stage if the petition and record of conviction conclusively establish ineligibility.
- relied: People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967 — A prima facie denial is erroneous if based on a plea where a defendant did not admit that he acted with premeditation, deliberation, or intent to kill (specifically personal malice).
- relied: People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 — The standard of review for a trial court's denial of a section 1172.6 petition is de novo.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — General authority for resolving matters by memorandum opinion.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the binding Supreme Court precedent in People v. Lewis and People v. Curiel to prohibit factfinding at the prima facie stage. It also correctly applies People v. Eynon to determine that the record of conviction did not conclusively establish ineligibility for relief.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Bernardino Superior Court summarily denied Andrew Pacheco's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, without ordering briefing, by judicially noticing his testimony at his codefendants' evidentiary hearing that he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal, accepting the Attorney General's concession, reversed and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold a subdivision (d) evidentiary hearing.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of the section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage based on judicially noticed testimony from the codefendants' evidentiary hearing, taken without first ordering briefing under section 1172.6(c)“By taking judicial notice of the transcript, the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding using evidence outside Pacheco’s record of conviction.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Lewis (11 Cal.5th 952) confines the prima facie inquiry to the petition and the record of conviction and forbids factfinding; Curiel (15 Cal.5th 433) requires the court to accept the petitioner's allegations as true and deny only where the record of conviction conclusively refutes them. A transcript from a separate hearing in the codefendants' cases is not part of Pacheco's record of conviction, so using it to find he was the actual killer was factfinding the statute reserves for the (d)(3) hearing. The trial court also skipped the mandatory briefing step. The People's concession and the authorities support the appellate conclusion; the admission remains available to the People at the evidentiary hearing. |
Implicit determination that Pacheco's guilty plea to murder with an admission that the killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated conclusively established his ineligibility for relief“Although Pacheco pled guilty to murder and admitted it was premeditated, deliberate, and willful, this was not enough to deny his petition at the prima facie stage because he did not admit he personally acted with malice aforethought.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Eynon (68 Cal.App.5th 967) holds that a plea to premeditated first degree murder does not by itself establish the defendant personally premeditated or harbored intent to kill, because under pre-2019 law such a conviction could rest on the natural and probable consequences doctrine with the premeditation imputed from the actual killer. Pacheco's plea and admission did not include a personal-malice admission, so the record of conviction does not conclusively refute his allegations under Curiel. The court correctly applied this authority. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consider the record of conviction but may not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion
- relied: People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 — The court must accept the petitioner's factual allegations as true and may deny at the prima facie stage only if the petition and record of conviction conclusively establish ineligibility
- relied: People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967 — A guilty plea to premeditated first degree murder does not conclusively establish ineligibility where the defendant did not admit personally acting with premeditation, deliberation, or intent to kill
- relied: People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 — Denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage is reviewed de novo
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Appellate courts may resolve straightforward appeals, including those with a concession of error, by memorandum opinion
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion identifies the controlling Supreme Court authorities (Lewis and Curiel) and the on-point Court of Appeal decision (Eynon), applies them to a trial court that both skipped the statutory briefing step and relied on evidence outside the record of conviction, and reaches the disposition the statute requires. Although brief and resting on a concession, it does not skip any argument raised and correctly limits the remedy to issuance of an order to show cause rather than granting relief outright.
Opinion
Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Pacheco CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D083599
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FVA1200768-3)
ANDREW PACHECO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Ingrid A. Uhler, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa A. Mandel, Seth M. Friedman and Joseph C. Anagnos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Andrew Pacheco appeals from a trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The People concede error. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept the concession, reverse, and remand with directions to the trial court to issue an order to show cause. I. In 2015, Pacheco pled guilty to murder (Pen. Code, § 187(a)) and admitted it was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. In 2023, Pacheco petitioned the trial court to vacate his conviction and resentence him under section 1172.6. Pacheco alleged (1) the information filed against him allowed the prosecution to proceed under a felony murder theory or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, (2) he pled guilty, and (3) he could not now be convicted of murder. The trial court summarily denied Pacheco’s petition. It judicially noticed and based its decision on Pacheco’s admission at his codefendants’ section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing that he was the actual killer. II. Pacheco claims the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage by relying on his admission to conclude he was the actual killer and ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. We review his claim de novo. (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52.) Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder and natural and probable consequences doctrines to ensure “murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1(f).) Senate Bill No. 1437 amended section 188 to require all principals to murder to act with malice aforethought, except as to felony murder. (§ 188(a)(3).) For a felony murder conviction, the participant must 2 be the actual killer, an aider and abettor to the underlying felony who acted with intent to kill, or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. (§ 189(e)(1)-(3).) Senate Bill 1437 established a procedure for an individual convicted under the old murder law to petition the court to vacate the conviction and impose a new sentence. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4; see generally § 1172.6.) A petitioner may be entitled to relief if (1) the information filed against the petitioner allowed the prosecution to procced under a felony murder theory or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, (2) the petitioner pled guilty, and (3) the petitioner could not now be convicted of murder based on changes to sections 188 and 189. (§ 1172.6(a).) After receiving a section 1172.6 petition, the parties submit briefing, and the court must evaluate whether the petitioner has established a prima facie showing for relief before issuing an order to show cause. (§ 1172.6(c).) The court may not engage in factfinding at the prima facie stage (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972) and must accept the petitioner’s assertions as true (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463). The court may only deny a petition at the prima facie stage if the petition and record of conviction conclusively establish the petitioner is ineligible for relief. (Id. at p. 450.) A prima facie denial is erroneous if based on a plea where a defendant “did not admit that he acted with premeditation, deliberation, or intent to kill.” (People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 970-971.) Here, Pacheco met his initial burden by filing a section 1172.6 petition asserting he could not now be convicted on his plea to the old murder statute based on the changes to sections 188 and 189. (§ 1172.6(a).) Rather than request briefing under section 1172.6(c), the trial court took judicial notice of Pacheco’s testimony at his codefendants’ section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing 3 where he admitted to being the actual killer and denied Pacheco’s petition. By taking judicial notice of the transcript, the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding using evidence outside Pacheco’s record of conviction. (Lewis, 11 Cal.5th at p. 972.) This was, as the People concede, prejudicial error. Although Pacheco pled guilty to murder and admitted it was premeditated, deliberate, and willful, this was not enough to deny his petition at the prima facie stage because he did not admit he personally acted with malice aforethought. (Eynon, 68 Cal.App.5th at pp. 970-971.) Thus, Pacheco’s record of conviction does not conclusively establish he is ineligible for relief. (Curiel, 15 Cal.5th at p. 450.) For these reasons, we agree with the People’s request that we reverse and remand to the trial court “with directions to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d).” III. We reverse the trial court’s order denying Pacheco’s section 1172.6 petition and remand for the trial court to issue an order to show cause consistent with this opinion.
CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Curiel S272238 · 2023-11-27
- People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26
- People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17