People v. Valdez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from orders
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN244669
- Trial judge
- Aaron H. Katz
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied the appellants' petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, ruling that their voluntary manslaughter convictions were ineligible. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to hold evidentiary hearings, applying the newly enacted Senate Bill 775 which made such convictions eligible for resentencing.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95“The court then denied the petitions, finding convictions for manslaughter were not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court found the trial court's ruling incorrect in light of the newly enacted Senate Bill 775, which amended section 1170.95 to make manslaughter convictions obtained as lesser offenses of murder eligible for resentencing. Because the appeals were not final when the new law took effect, the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the new legislation, necessitating a reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264 — Appellants are entitled to receive the benefits of new legislation if their appeals were not final as of the effective date of the new law.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the principle from People v. Vieira that pending appeals are entitled to the benefits of new legislation enacted before the appeal becomes final. The court properly identifies that Senate Bill 775 changed the eligibility criteria for section 1170.95 and directs the trial court to conduct the required evidentiary hearings.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Irwin and Adan Valdez's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petitions on the ground that their voluntary manslaughter convictions, entered by plea in a murder prosecution, were categorically ineligible for relief. While the appeals were pending, Senate Bill 775 amended section 1170.95 to cover manslaughter convictions obtained as lesser offenses of murder, and the Court of Appeal, with the Attorney General's concession, reversed and remanded with directions to issue orders to show cause and hold evidentiary hearings.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.95 resentencing petitions on the ground that voluntary manslaughter convictions are ineligible for relief“The court then denied the petitions, finding convictions for manslaughter were not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.” | unclear | error (statutory interpretation) | agree with court The trial court's ruling was consistent with the statute as it read in 2019, but Senate Bill 775 expressly extended section 1170.95 to manslaughter convictions obtained as lesser offenses of murder, and under the Estrada line (as stated in People v. Vieira) an ameliorative amendment applies to cases not yet final on appeal. The appeals were pending on the January 1, 2022 effective date, so reversal and remand for proceedings under the amended statute is the correct result; the Attorney General's concession and the court's record review support directing issuance of an order to show cause. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264 — A defendant whose judgment is not yet final on appeal is entitled to the benefit of an ameliorative change in the law enacted while the appeal is pending.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that Senate Bill 775 made manslaughter convictions eligible for section 1170.95 relief and applies the settled retroactivity rule from Vieira to appeals pending on the effective date, with both parties in agreement. It does not explain why the record satisfies the prima facie showing warranting an order to show cause, but it relies on its own record review and the Attorney General's concession, which is adequate for this stipulated disposition.
Opinion
Filed 1/4/22 P. v. Valdez 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, D078638
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN244669)
IRWIN DWAYNE VALDEZ et al., Defendants and Appellants.
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Aaron H. Katz, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Irwin Dwayne Valdez. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Adan Valdez. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, and Robin Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, Irwin Valdez (Irwin) and Adan Valdez (Adan)1 were both charged with murder in the same case. Both entered into plea bargains under the terms of which both appellants pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,2 § 192, subd. (a)). Adan stipulated to a term of 15 years in prison. Irwin agreed to a term of 23 years in prison. In 2019, Appellants each filed petitions for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. The court then denied the petitions, finding convictions for manslaughter were not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. Both Appellants have appealed the denial of their resentencing petitions. While this case has been pending, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775) (effective January 1, 2022). The bill amends section 1170.95 as relevant here, making convictions for manslaughter obtained as lesser offenses of murder, eligible for resentencing. Senate Bill 775 was not in effect when the trial court ruled on the petitions. After Senate Bill 775 was enacted, we requested and received supplemental briefs on the effect of the new legislation. The Appellants contend and the Attorney General agrees, the orders must be reversed, and the matter remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.3 1 Since both Appellants have the same last name, we will use their first names for convenience where appropriate. No disrespect is intended. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the issues presented by this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts.
2 DISCUSSION The Appellants’ appeals were not final as of the effective date of Senate Bill 775. Thus, the Appellants are entitled to receive the benefits of the new legislation if they otherwise qualify. (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 306.) Since the statute had not been enacted when the trial court ruled on the petitions, we must remand the case to the Superior Court. After reviewing the record, the Attorney General also correctly concedes we should direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause and to hold an evidentiary hearing as required by section 1170.95. Our review of the record and the new legislation convinces us the parties are correct in their analysis of these appeals. We will reverse and remand with directions. DISPOSITION The orders denying the Appellants’ petitions are reversed. The case is remanded to the superior court with directions to issue orders to show cause 3 and to conduct evidentiary hearings as required by statute. We express no opinion as to the correct outcome of such evidentiary hearings.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Vieira S026040 · 2005-05-26