People v. Padilla CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD235440
- Trial judge
- Kenneth K. So
- 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 Padilla's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, concluding that a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder was ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing, accepting the Attorney General's concession that the subsequent enactment of Senate Bill 775 clarified that such pleas are eligible for resentencing.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95“The court concluded Padilla’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court found the trial court's ruling incorrect because the law changed during the pendency of the appeal. The Legislature enacted Senate Bill 775, which clarified that individuals who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of murder are eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court accepted the Attorney General's concession that the order must be reversed and the case remanded for an evidentiary hearing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — At the time of the trial court's ruling, appellate courts were virtually unanimous that pleas to voluntary manslaughter were not eligible for relief under section 1170.95.
- relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — At the time of the trial court's ruling, appellate courts were virtually unanimous that pleas to voluntary manslaughter were not eligible for relief under section 1170.95.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the legislative change (Senate Bill 775) that altered the legal landscape regarding eligibility for resentencing. It appropriately accepts the Attorney General's concession, which aligns with the new statutory interpretation, and directs the necessary procedural steps (OSC and evidentiary hearing) without unnecessary delay.
The trial court denied Melissa Padilla's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition on the ground that her 2013 guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter, as a lesser offense of murder, made her categorically ineligible for relief. While the appeal was pending, Senate Bill 775 amended the statute to make manslaughter pleas eligible, the Attorney General conceded, and the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.95 petition on the ground that a voluntary manslaughter conviction is ineligible for resentencing“The court concluded Padilla’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.” | unclear | error (other) | agree with court The trial court's ruling was consistent with then-controlling appellate authority (Turner, Paige), but Senate Bill 775, effective January 1, 2022, expressly extended section 1170.95 to persons who pleaded to manslaughter in lieu of murder. Because the petition was still on direct appeal when the ameliorative amendment took effect, applying the amended statute and reversing is the correct result; the court did not articulate a standard of review, though statutory eligibility is a legal question reviewed de novo. |
Remand with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing (acceptance of parties' agreement that a prima facie showing was made)“The parties further agree that a prima facie showing has been made and that the case must be remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause (OSC) and to hold an evidentiary hearing.” | unclear | error | unsure The court accepted the Attorney General's concession that a prima facie showing existed and directed an OSC rather than remanding for the trial court to conduct the prima facie review itself. The result is defensible given the concession and the court's statement that its review of the record agreed, but the opinion sets out no facts and no independent analysis of the prima facie standard, so the basis cannot be fully evaluated from the opinion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — Before Senate Bill 775, a defendant who pleaded to voluntary manslaughter was not eligible for relief under section 1170.95; cited to show the trial court's ruling tracked then-existing law.
- relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — Before Senate Bill 775, section 1170.95 did not extend to voluntary manslaughter convictions; cited for the prior near-unanimous appellate view.
- missed: In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 — An ameliorative change in the law applies to all cases not yet final on appeal absent contrary legislative intent; the court applied Senate Bill 775 to this pending appeal without citing or explaining the retroactivity principle.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is plainly correct because Senate Bill 775 amended section 1170.95 to cover manslaughter pleas and the appeal was pending when the amendment took effect, and the Attorney General conceded. The opinion, however, offers no retroactivity analysis, no statement of facts, and no independent discussion of why a prima facie showing was made, relying instead on the concession.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 2/14/22 P. v. Padilla 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, D078647
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD235440)
MELISSA PADILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth K. So, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Ellen M. Matsumoto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel Acting Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. The petition was denied by the trial court because appellant had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of the charge of murder. At the time of the ruling, the law appeared to support the trial court’s conclusion, but during the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775), which makes clear that persons who plead guilty to manslaughter can be eligible for resentencing. As a result of the legislative clarification, the Attorney General properly concedes the order must be reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, Melissa Padilla pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)). Padilla also pleaded guilty to one count of robbery (§ 211); admitted a gang allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)); and admitted she was a principal where another principal personally used a firearm during the robbery (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)). Padilla was sentenced to a stipulated term of 25 years and four months in prison. In 2021, Padilla filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and denied the petition by written order. The court concluded Padilla’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. Padilla filed a timely notice of appeal.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 DISCUSSION2 As we have noted, at the time of the trial court’s ruling on Padilla’s petition, the appellate courts were virtually unanimous that pleas to voluntary manslaughter were not eligible for relief under section 1170.95. (People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 438; People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194, 201-204.) In the interim, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 775, effective January 1, 2022. That legislation made clear that persons who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter as lesser offenses of murder could be eligible for resentencing. Padilla contends and the Attorney General agrees that the trial court’s denial of the resentencing petition must be reversed. The parties further agree that a prima facie showing has been made and that the case must be remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause (OSC) and to hold an evidentiary hearing. Our review of the record persuades us the parties are correct in their analysis of this appeal. We will accept the Attorney General’s concession. DISPOSITION The order denying Padilla’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is reversed. The case is remanded to the Superior Court with 2 Given the Attorney General’s concession, we find it unnecessary to include a statement of facts based on the grand jury transcript. 3 directions to issue an OSC and conduct an evidentiary hearing consistent with statute.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
DO, J.