People v. Villa CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN142798
- Trial judge
- Runston G. Maino
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Edward Villa's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 at the prima facie stage, concluding he was ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing, accepting the Attorney General's concession that the record did not establish ineligibility as a matter of law.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause.“we cannot say that Villa is ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95 as a matter of law. We are compelled on this record to accept the Attorney General’s concession and reverse the order denying Villa’s petition.” | de novo | error | agree with court The trial court erred because the jury was instructed on both valid theories (direct aiding and abetting, conspiracy) and the now-invalid natural and probable consequences doctrine. Under People v. Lewis, a trial court may only deny a petition at the prima facie stage if the record shows the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law. Because the record did not specify which theory the jury relied upon, the trial court could not make that determination without engaging in impermissible factfinding or weighing evidence. The appellate court correctly applied the standard from Lewis and Drayton to reverse the denial. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Clarified that after appointment of counsel, a trial court may deny a section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage only if the record shows the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law, and may not engage in factfinding, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations.
- relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — A trial court may not engage in factfinding, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations when evaluating a section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the holding in People v. Lewis to the specific facts where the jury was instructed on multiple theories, including the invalidated natural and probable consequences doctrine. The court properly recognized that the record was insufficient to determine ineligibility as a matter of law, thereby justifying the reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe superior court denied Edward Villa's Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing on his 2003 first degree murder conviction at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, after reviewing the record of conviction including the jury instructions and the prior appellate opinion. The Court of Appeal, accepting the Attorney General's concession, reversed and remanded with directions to issue an OSC and conduct an evidentiary hearing because the jury had been instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine and the record did not show Villa was ineligible as a matter of law.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.95 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause“we cannot tell from this record whether the jury relied on the now impermissible theory of murder arising as a natural and probable consequence of committing a different offense. Thus, we cannot say that Villa is ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95 as a matter of law.” | de novo | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Under People v. Lewis, a court may deny a petition at the prima facie stage only where the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law, without factfinding or weighing evidence. Because the jury was instructed on natural and probable consequences alongside valid direct aiding and abetting and conspiracy theories, and no instruction or finding forecloses reliance on the invalid theory, the record does not conclusively establish ineligibility. The Attorney General's concession and the court's reasoning are consistent with Lewis and Drayton, so the reversal is correct; the opinion does not expressly state its standard of review, but prima facie eligibility on the record of conviction is a legal question. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — After appointing counsel, a trial court may deny a section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage only where the record of conviction shows the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law; the court may not engage in factfinding, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations.
- relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1170.95 petition the trial court must accept the petitioner's allegations as true and may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies Lewis's limit on prima facie review: where the jury was instructed on natural and probable consequences and nothing in the record forecloses reliance on that theory, the petitioner cannot be found ineligible as a matter of law. The reasoning is brief and leans on the Attorney General's concession, omitting the facts and any detailed analysis of the instructions and verdict findings, but the result and authorities are sound.
Opinion
Filed 3/28/22 P. v. Villa 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, D078466
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN142798)
EDWARD VILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Susan K. Shaler, 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, Steve Oetting and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2003, a jury convicted Edward Villa of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that Villa was a principal in the murder and that another principal personally used a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). The jury also convicted Villa of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found the assault was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Villa was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement consecutive to a nine-year term for the assault offense and the gang enhancement. Villa appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Villa (May 4, 2005, D043572) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, Villa filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95, seeking resentencing of his murder conviction. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and reviewed the record of conviction, including the jury instructions and the opinion from the previous appeal. The court concluded that Villa had not stated a prima facie case for relief and therefore denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause (OSC). Villa filed a timely notice of appeal. In his appeal, Villa argues the trial court erred in denying the petition at the prima facie stage of review because the jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine as well as on direct aiding and abetting and conspiracy theories. The Attorney General agrees with Villa’s analysis of the record and properly concedes the court erred in denying the petition without issuing an OSC and conducting an evidentiary hearing. Our 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 review of the record convinces us the trial court’s order denying the petition must be reversed and the matter remanded with directions to issue an OSC and conduct an appropriate evidentiary hearing. STATEMENT OF FACTS. The facts of the offenses are set forth in our prior opinion. Given the Attorney General’s concession, we find it unnecessary to repeat them here. DISCUSSION In People v. Lewis (2021)11 Cal.5th 952, 970-973, the Supreme Court clarified the role of trial courts in evaluating petitions for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court held that after appointment of counsel, the court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage where the record shows the petitioner is not eligible for resentencing as a matter of law. The court may not, however, engage in factfinding, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations. (People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 968.) Here, the jury was instructed on direct aiding and abetting as well as conspiracy, currently valid theories of liability. However, the jury also was instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine arising out of an offense other than murder. As Villa argues and the Attorney General agrees, we cannot tell from this record whether the jury relied on the now impermissible theory of murder arising as a natural and probable consequence of committing a different offense. Thus, we cannot say that Villa is ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95 as a matter of law. We are compelled on this record to accept the Attorney General’s concession and reverse the order denying Villa’s petition. DISPOSITION The order denying Villa’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court with 3 directions to issue an OSC and conduct an appropriate evidentiary hearing under section 1170.95, subdivision (c).
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26