People v. Leon CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081873 · 2024-05-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD102189
Trial judge: Frederick Maguire
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:14Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Leon’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage, finding he was statutorily ineligible as the 'only killer.' The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the record of conviction, specifically the jury instructions and verdict, established as a matter of law that Leon was convicted on a direct perpetrator theory rather than an imputed malice theory.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage “Here, the trial court denied the Petition without issuing an order to show cause, finding Leon was the “only killer” of Ruda.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court applied de novo review to the trial court's decision to deny the petition at the prima facie stage, citing People v. Harden. It concluded that the trial court's reliance on the prior appellate opinion's factual summary was potentially erroneous but harmless because the record of conviction (jury instructions and verdict) independently established ineligibility as a matter of law.

Authorities

relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Establishes the standard for prima facie review under section 1172.6, prohibiting factfinding and requiring denial only if ineligibility is established as a matter of law by the record of conviction.
relied: People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 — Holds that if the record shows the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony-murder doctrines, the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
relied: People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974 — Clarifies that while a court may consider procedural history in a prior appellate opinion, it may not rely on the opinion's factual summary for factfinding purposes.
relied: People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 — Provides the harmless error test for state law errors, which the court applied to the trial court's potential improper reliance on the prior appellate opinion.
relied: People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 — Cited for the legislative intent to more equitably sentence offenders in accordance with their involvement in homicides.
relied: People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46 — Explains that under current law, a defendant who participated but was not the direct perpetrator cannot be convicted of murder based on imputed malice.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the de novo standard of review and relies on the record of conviction (jury instructions) to establish ineligibility as a matter of law, consistent with People v. Harden. It appropriately addresses the potential error of relying on the prior appellate opinion by applying the Watson harmless error test, ensuring the result rests on the proper legal basis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence medium

The trial court denied Jose Juan Leon's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding from the record of conviction (including the prior appellate opinion) that he was the victim's "only killer" and thus statutorily ineligible. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that any improper reliance on the factual summary in the prior opinion was harmless because the judicially noticed jury instructions showed no natural and probable consequences or felony-murder theories were given, Leon conceded the jury was instructed only on premeditated murder and direct aiding and abetting, and CALJIC No. 8.10 required a finding he killed with malice aforethought.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, based on a finding that Leon was the "only killer" drawn from the record of conviction including the prior appellate opinion “Although it appears the court may have impermissibly relied on the facts of our first Leon opinion in denying the Petition (see Flores, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 988), we conclude any such error was harmless as a matter of law.”	de novo	harmless error (law misapplied)	agree with court Under Lewis the trial court may not rely on a prior opinion's factual summary at the prima facie stage, and the appellate court acknowledged that likely occurred. But because review is independent and the Court of Appeal properly took judicial notice of the record of conviction, the result is correct: the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder (CALJIC 3.02, 8.33, 8.34 refused), Leon conceded only premeditated murder and direct aiding and abetting were instructed, and direct aiding and abetting of premeditated murder requires the aider's own intent to kill, so the record establishes ineligibility as a matter of law under Harden. The court's additional CALJIC 8.10 reasoning (that the jury 'necessarily found' Leon killed) is overbroad because aiding and abetting instructions were given and a codefendant was tried, so the jury need not have found Leon was the actual killer; the affirmance nonetheless rests on independently sufficient grounds.
Failure to provide a statement fully setting forth the reasons for declining to issue an order to show cause, including the portion of the record of conviction relied on (§ 1172.6, subd. (c)) “He claims the trial court engaged in inappropriate factfinding and failed to specify the portion of the record of conviction on which it relied; and instead should have issued an order to show cause and set the matter for an evidentiary hearing.”	de novo	not reached (procedure)	agree with court The opinion identifies this contention but does not separately analyze whether the trial court's statement of reasons satisfied subdivision (c); it resolves the appeal on the ground that any error was harmless under Watson because the record of conviction shows ineligibility as a matter of law. Given independent review and Leon's concession about the instructions, a remand for a fuller statement of reasons would serve no purpose, so the outcome is defensible even though the argument was not squarely addressed.

Authorities

relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage the court may consult the record of conviction but may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence; denial is proper only if the record establishes ineligibility as a matter of law, and state-law error at this stage is reviewed for prejudice under Watson.
relied: People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 — Denial at the prima facie stage is reviewed independently; if the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder, the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law.
misapplied: People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 — Harden found the defendant was necessarily the actual killer where the instructions and record indicated no other participant; the CALJIC No. 8.10 language does not alone establish that a jury given aiding and abetting instructions in a two-defendant case necessarily found the petitioner personally killed the victim.
relied: People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974 — A court may consider the procedural history in a prior appellate opinion but may not rely on its factual summary to deny a resentencing petition at the prima facie stage.
relied: People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 — State-law error is harmless unless it is reasonably probable the petitioner would have obtained a more favorable result absent the error.
relied: People v. Hurtado (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 887 — Errors at the prima facie stage of section 1172.6 proceedings are state-law errors subject to harmless-error analysis.
relied: People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 — Senate Bill 1437 amended the Penal Code to sentence homicide offenders more equitably according to their individual involvement.
relied: People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46 — A non-perpetrator participant can no longer be convicted of murder on a theory of imputed malice; liability requires the defendant's own actions and subjective intent.
relied: People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90 — If the record does not establish ineligibility as a matter of law, the court must issue an order to show cause and permit the petitioner to present additional evidence.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is correctly grounded on the jury instructions (refusal of natural and probable consequences and felony-murder instructions) and Leon's own concession that only premeditated murder and direct aiding and abetting were instructed, which under Harden establishes ineligibility as a matter of law on independent review. The opinion overreaches in asserting the jury 'necessarily found' Leon killed the victim based on CALJIC No. 8.10, since aiding and abetting instructions were given in a case with a codefendant, and it does not squarely address the statement-of-reasons argument, though neither gap affects the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 5/21/24 P. v. Leon 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, D081873

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD102189)

JOSE JUAN LEON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia L. Brisbois, 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, Collette C. Cavalier, Lynne G. McGinnis, and Ksenia Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Petitioner Jose Juan Leon appeals from the March 16, 2023 order denying (at the prima facie stage) his petition for resentencing (Petition)

under Penal Code2 section 1170.95, renumbered and now section 1172.6. He claims the trial court engaged in inappropriate factfinding and failed to specify the portion of the record of conviction on which it relied; and instead should have issued an order to show cause and set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. In an information filed in March 1994, the district attorney charged Leon and codefendant Rodney Alexander Pimentel with the murder of Skip Ruda. It further alleged that in committing the murder, Leon alone personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon (a knife). The jury convicted Leon of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found the personal use of a weapon enhancement true (§ 12022, subd. (b)). However, the jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Pimentel. The court sentenced Leon to 25 years to life in prison on the murder count, plus one year for the weapon enhancement. We affirmed the judgment in 1997. (See People v. Leon (Mar. 24, 1997, D023772) [nonpub. opin.].) Leon filed his Petition in 2020. The trial court summarily denied it in August 2021. In December 2022 we reversed the order and remanded the matter with instructions that it appoint counsel for Leon and conduct further proceedings. (People v. Leon (Oct. 12, 2022, D079522) [nonpub. opin.].) On remand, the court ruled Leon was statutorily ineligible for relief under 1 This case is appropriate for resolution by memorandum opinion because it raises “no substantial issues of law or fact.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; see People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.)

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 section 1172.6, finding he was Ruda’s “only killer.” In making this finding, the court relied on the record of conviction, which included a certified copy of the abstract of judgment and our opinion in Leon, supra, D023772. Effective 2019, the Legislature amended the Penal Code to “ ‘more equitably sentence offenders in accordance with their involvement in homicides.’ ” (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448.) A defendant who participated but was not the direct perpetrator in a murder can no longer be convicted of murder based on imputed malice. (People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 54.) Rather, a murder conviction requires the defendant’s personal actions and subjective intent. (Ibid.; see § 189, subd. (e) [“A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: [¶] (1) The person was the actual killer. [¶] (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. [¶] (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.”].) Section 1172.6 provides a mechanism for previously convicted defendants who would not be convicted under current law to petition the court for relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) A trial court reviewing a section 1172.6 petition must first determine if the petitioner made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971 (Lewis).) The court must generally take the petitioner’s factual allegations as true, but it is not required to accept factual allegations that are conclusively refuted by the record of conviction. (Ibid.) Although the court is permitted to examine the record of conviction to assess 3 the petitioner’s claim of eligibility, it may not engage in factfinding, weigh the evidence, or assess credibility. (Id. at pp. 971-972.) Similarly, the court may consider the procedural history contained in a prior appellate opinion but may not rely on the opinion’s factual summary. (See People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 988 (Flores).) The court may deny a petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction establishes the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) Otherwise, the court must issue an order to show cause and allow the petitioner to submit additional relevant evidence. (People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101; § 1172.6, subds. (c), (d).) We independently review the trial court’s decision to deny a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage. (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52 (Harden).) Here, the trial court denied the Petition without issuing an order to show cause, finding Leon was the “only killer” of Ruda. (See § 1172.6, subd.

(c).3) Although it appears the court may have impermissibly relied on the facts of our first Leon opinion in denying the Petition (see Flores, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 988), we conclude any such error was harmless as a matter of law. (See Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 973 [“Typically, when an 3 Subdivision (c) of section 1172.6 provides: “Within 60 days after service of a petition that meets the requirements set forth in subdivision (b), the prosecutor shall file and serve a response. The petitioner may file and serve a reply within 30 days after the prosecutor’s response is served. These deadlines shall be extended for good cause. After the parties have had an opportunity to submit briefings, the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause. If the court declines to make an order to show cause, it shall provide a statement fully setting forth its reasons for doing so.” 4 ‘error is purely one of state law, the Watson harmless error test applies.’ ”], citing People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836; accord, People v. Hurtado (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 887, 892 [“the harmless error doctrine provides a reasonable method to avoid protracted hearings in past cases that are final and should stay that way”; failure to appoint counsel at the prima facie stage is state-law error subject to harmless-error analysis].) The People’s unopposed request for judicial notice (RJN) of the record in Leon, supra, D023772, which request we granted in February 2024, includes the jury verdict and jury instructions from petitioner’s 1995 conviction. Of note, in instructing the jury the trial court refused to give CALJIC 3.02, “Principals -- Liability for Natural and Probable Consequences”; CALJIC 8.33, “Second Degree Felony-Murder -- In Pursuance of a Conspiracy”; and CALJIC 8.34, “Second Degree Felony-Murder -- Aider and Abettor (Penal Code, § 189).” “[I]f the record shows that the jury was not instructed on either the natural and probable consequences or felony-murder doctrines, then the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.” (Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 52.) Leon also concedes that the “prior appellate record shows that the jury was instructed on only one theory of first degree murder based on premeditation and deliberation and that only aiding and abetting instructions were given.” Thus, without engaging in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion, the RJN shows as a matter of law that Leon is not entitled to relief under section 1172.6. Moreover, in this court’s Harden opinion and in the instant case the trial court gave CALJIC No. 8.10 when instructing the jury on the elements of murder. (Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 58 [relying in part on this instruction to find that the defendant was the actual killer, thus denying her 5 petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage].) It provides in relevant part: “Every person who unlawfully kills a human being with malice aforethought is guilty of the crime of murder in violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code.” ( CALJIC No. 8.10, italics added.) Thus, when the jury convicted Leon of first degree murder it necessarily found that he “kill[ed] a human being with malice aforethought” (ibid.), rendering him statutorily ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 (see Harden, supra, at p. 58). DISPOSITION The March 16, 2023 order denying Leon’s Petition is affirmed.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, 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
People v. Watson Crim. 5813 · 1956-07-03