People v. Ladelle CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FSB1104036
- Trial judge
- William Jefferson Powell IV
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Ladelle’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, finding he had not made a prima facie case for relief based on its evaluation of the evidence. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing because the trial court improperly engaged in factfinding at the prima facie stage.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 without issuing an order to show cause (OSC) or holding an evidentiary hearing.“The court then concluded Ladelle had not stated a prima facie case for relief and was therefore ineligible for resentencing. The court did not issue an OSC or conduct an evidentiary hearing under section 1170.95.” | de novo | error | agree with court The appellate court found the trial court erred by engaging in factfinding and weighing evidence to determine eligibility, which is prohibited at the prima facie stage. The court held that because the trial court drew inferences from testimony, it must issue an OSC and hold a hearing rather than denying the petition outright. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Clarifies the role of trial courts in reviewing section 1170.95 petitions; if a prima facie showing is made, the court must issue an OSC and hold a hearing; if the record rebuts allegations, the court may deny without an OSC but cannot engage in factfinding.
- relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — Trial courts cannot engage in factfinding, weighing evidence, or making credibility decisions when assessing the prima facie showing for section 1170.95 petitions.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the standard established in People v. Lewis and People v. Drayton to distinguish between permissible review of the record of conviction and impermissible factfinding. It accurately identifies that the trial court’s selection of testimony to draw inferences constituted the prohibited type of evidentiary analysis at the prima facie stage.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Bobby Ladelle's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding after evaluating the evidence that he could have been the actual killer or an active participant, without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeal accepted the Attorney General's concession, reversed, and remanded with directions to issue an OSC and hold an evidentiary hearing.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an OSC or holding an evidentiary hearing, based on the court's own evaluation of the trial evidence“In the present case, the record demonstrates the court engaged in factfinding and drawing evidentiary inferences. The court selected certain testimony from the record to draw inferences about the nature of Ladelle’s participation in the offense.” | unclear | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Under People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, the prima facie inquiry under section 1170.95 is limited; a court may deny without an OSC only if the record of conviction conclusively refutes the petitioner's allegations as a matter of law, and may not weigh evidence, make credibility determinations, or draw factual inferences. The trial court here expressly 'evaluated the evidence' and found it 'would support' findings that Ladelle was the actual killer or an active participant, which is factfinding reserved for the post-OSC evidentiary hearing. The appellate court's conclusion follows directly from Lewis and Drayton, and the Attorney General conceded the point. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1170.95 petition, the trial court may consult the record of conviction but may not engage in factfinding, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations; if the petitioner makes a prima facie showing the court must issue an OSC and hold an evidentiary hearing.
- relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — A trial court assessing a section 1170.95 petition's prima facie showing must accept the petitioner's allegations as true unless the record of conviction refutes them as a matter of law, and may not weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes without an evidentiary hearing.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Lewis and Drayton to a trial court that admittedly evaluated evidence and drew inferences at the prima facie stage, and the Attorney General's concession supports the result. The opinion is brief, does not state a standard of review, and does not describe the record of conviction, but given the concession and the clear legal rule the result is defensible.
Opinion
Filed 1/5/22 P. v. Ladelle 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, D078350
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB1104036)
BOBBY CHARLES LADELLE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, William Jefferson Powell IV, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Arthur Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95, without first issuing an order to show cause (OSC) and conducting an evidentiary hearing. Appellant contends the court erred. The Attorney General properly agrees and concedes the order must be reversed and the matter remanded to the superior court. After reviewing the record, we will accept the Attorney General’s concession and reverse the order denying the petition. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, a jury convicted Bobby Ladelle of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). Ladelle was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison. Ladelle appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Ladelle, D069929 (July 28, 2016).) In 2019, Ladelle filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. After evaluating the evidence, the court found the evidence would support a finding Ladelle was the actual killer, or if convicted as an aider and abettor under the felony murder rule, he was an active participant. The court then concluded Ladelle had not stated a prima facie case for relief and was therefore ineligible for resentencing. The court did not issue an OSC or conduct an evidentiary hearing under section 1170.95. Ladelle filed a timely notice of appeal. The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. Given the respondent’s concession we will not repeat them here. (People v. Ladelle, supra, D069929.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION Our Supreme Court has recently clarified the role of trial courts who are reviewing petitions for resentencing under section 1170.95. In People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-971, the court discussed the review of petitions to determine if they have made prima facie showing of eligibility for relief. If the petitions have made such showing the court must issue an OSC and hold an evidentiary hearing. If, however, the record of conviction contains facts which rebut the petitioner’s allegations, after the appointment of counsel the court may deny the petition without issuing an OSC. While the trial court can and should review the record of conviction when assessing the prima facie showing, the court cannot engage in factfinding, weighing evidence or making credibility decisions. (See People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 979-980.) In the present case, the record demonstrates the court engaged in factfinding and drawing evidentiary inferences. The court selected certain testimony from the record to draw inferences about the nature of Ladelle’s participation in the offense. Such evidentiary analysis must await the issuance of an OSC and conducting a full evidentiary hearing. We accept the Attorney General’s concession and will reverse and remand.
3 DISPOSITION The order denying Ladelle’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is reversed. The case is remanded to the superior court with directions to issue an OSC and hold an evidentiary hearing as required by statute. We express no opinion as to the appropriate outcome of such hearing.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26