People v. Mauldin CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR50251
- Trial judge
- Yvonne E. Campos
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Laurence D. Rubin (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court denied Mauldin's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he failed to state a prima facie case because the record of conviction established he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Mauldin is ineligible for relief as a matter of law and that any procedural errors by the trial court were harmless.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage“We conclude the trial court properly denied Mauldin’s section 1172.6 petition because Mauldin failed to state a prima facie claim for relief.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the standard that a section 1172.6 petition may be summarily denied if the record of conviction establishes as a matter of law that the defendant was the actual killer. Since the jury convicted Mauldin of first-degree murder without instructions on felony murder or natural and probable consequences, the record conclusively establishes he was the actual killer, rendering him ineligible for relief. |
Denial of petition without holding a hearing“To the extent the superior court did not strictly comply with section 1172.6 in these respects we find any error harmless because Mauldin is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.” | abuse of discretion | harmless error | agree with court The appellate court acknowledged the trial court's failure to hold a hearing but deemed it harmless because the outcome was inevitable. Since the record of conviction conclusively established Mauldin's ineligibility for relief, the lack of a hearing did not affect the result. |
Reliance on statement of facts from prior appellate opinion“Additionally, in concluding Mauldin failed to state a prima facie case for relief, the superior court’s order discussed the statement of facts from the opinion in Mauldin’s direct appeal.” | abuse of discretion | harmless error | agree with court The appellate court noted the trial court's reliance on the prior direct appeal opinion but found this error harmless for the same reason: the record of conviction itself was sufficient to establish ineligibility, making the specific source of the facts irrelevant to the final outcome. |
Rejection of Brady and Miranda claims“A section 1172.6 petition, however, is not an opportunity to relitigate alleged errors that occurred during the underlying investigation or at trial.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly held that section 1172.6 petitions are not vehicles for raising trial errors such as Brady violations or Miranda violations. These claims must be raised through other procedural mechanisms, such as a writ of habeas corpus or direct appeal. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate review when counsel finds no arguable issues in a section 1172.6 appeal.
- relied: People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 — A section 1172.6 petition may be summarily denied when the record of conviction establishes as a matter of law that the jury determined the defendant was the actual killer.
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Supports the harmless error analysis regarding procedural deficiencies in section 1172.6 proceedings.
- relied: People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706 — Supports the harmless error analysis regarding procedural deficiencies in section 1172.6 proceedings.
- relied: People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 — A section 1172.6 petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence.
- relied: Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 — Establishes the constitutional right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence, which the court noted is not a proper claim in a section 1172.6 petition.
- relied: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 — Establishes the requirement to inform suspects of their rights, which the court noted is not a proper claim in a section 1172.6 petition.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the legal standard that a record of conviction establishing the defendant as the actual killer renders them ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. It also correctly identifies that trial errors like Brady and Miranda violations are not cognizable in this specific statutory proceeding.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court denied Charles Mauldin's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding the record of his 1980 first degree murder conviction established he was the actual killer. On appeal under People v. Delgadillo, the Fourth District, Division One found no arguable issues, held Mauldin ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the jury was instructed only on willful, deliberate, premeditated murder with express malice and no imputed-malice theory, deemed any procedural irregularities harmless, rejected his Brady and Miranda claims as outside the scope of section 1172.6, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of the section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that the record of conviction established Mauldin was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief“The record of conviction establishes that in convicting Mauldin of first degree murder, the jury determined he was the actual killer, and he is therefore ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review but effectively reviews the prima facie determination independently, which is appropriate for a question of law. The jury instructions quoted in the opinion show the sole theory was willful, deliberate, premeditated murder with express malice and intent to kill; there were no codefendants and no felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or other imputed-malice instructions. Under Lewis and Harden, a petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law when the record of conviction conclusively shows conviction on a still-valid theory, so denial without an evidentiary hearing was proper. |
Denial of the petition without holding the hearing contemplated by section 1172.6, subdivision (c)“We acknowledge that the superior court denied Mauldin’s petition without holding a hearing.” | unclear | harmless error (procedure) | agree with court Section 1172.6, subdivision (c) directs the court to hold a hearing to determine whether a prima facie case is made, so skipping it was a departure from the statute. Under People v. Lewis, procedural errors at the prima facie stage are state-law errors reviewed for prejudice under Watson, and a petitioner who is ineligible as a matter of law cannot show prejudice. Because the instructions foreclosed any imputed-malice theory, the harmless-error conclusion follows. |
Reliance on the statement of facts from the prior appellate opinion in concluding Mauldin failed to state a prima facie case“To the extent the superior court did not strictly comply with section 1172.6 in these respects we find any error harmless because Mauldin is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.” | unclear | harmless error (procedure) | agree with court Lewis cautioned that factual summaries in prior appellate opinions have limited value at the prima facie stage, and the trial court should not engage in factfinding from them. Any such error was harmless here because ineligibility rested on the jury instructions themselves, which are a proper part of the record of conviction and independently establish the jury found Mauldin personally acted with express malice. The appellate court cited Lewis and Vance for this point and the reasoning is consistent with them. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Procedure for appointed counsel's no-issue brief on appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition; when defendant files a supplemental brief, the court evaluates the arguments raised and may affirm if no arguable issues exist.
- relied: People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 — A section 1172.6 petition may be summarily denied at the prima facie stage when the record of conviction establishes as a matter of law that the jury found the defendant was the actual killer.
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Trial court may consider the record of conviction at the prima facie stage but may not engage in factfinding; procedural errors at that stage are state-law errors subject to harmless-error review, and a petitioner ineligible as a matter of law is not prejudiced.
- relied: People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706 — Procedural irregularities at the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition are harmless when the record of conviction shows the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
- relied: People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 — Filing a section 1172.6 petition does not give the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's findings.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly identified that the jury instructions, which contained no felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or imputed-malice theory and required express malice and intent to kill, conclusively establish ineligibility under section 1172.6, and it applied Lewis's harmless-error framework to the procedural lapses. It also properly rejected the Brady and Miranda claims as outside the scope of a resentencing petition, citing Farfan, so the result and reasoning align with controlling authority.
Opinion
Filed 5/22/24 P. v. Mauldin 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, D082621
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR50251)
CHARLES JAMES MAULDIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne Esperanza Campos, Judge. Affirmed. Charles James Mauldin, in pro. per.; and Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Charles James Mauldin appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code,1 section 1172.6. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Mauldin filed a supplemental brief. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1980, a jury convicted Mauldin of first degree murder. (§ 187.) The jury also found Mauldin personally used a firearm while he committed the murder. (§ 12022.5.) Mauldin was sentenced to two years plus 25 years to life. This court affirmed the judgment in the direct appeal. (People v. Mauldin (Jul. 22, 1981, 4 Crim. No. 11930) [nonpub. opn.].) In October 2022, Mauldin filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. After appointment of counsel and briefing by the parties, the superior court issued a written decision denying the petition. The court found Mauldin failed to state a prima facie claim for relief under section 1172.6, because the record of conviction established Mauldin as the actual killer. DISCUSSION Mauldin’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and requesting this court proceed pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. Counsel identifies the following issues to assist the court: (1) Did the trial court err by denying Mauldin’s petition at the prima facie stage?; (2) Did the trial court err by denying the petition without holding a hearing?; and (3) Did the trial court err by relying on the statement of facts contained in the prior appellate opinion? We conclude the trial court properly denied Mauldin’s section 1172.6 petition because Mauldin failed to state a prima facie claim for relief. At Mauldin’s trial, the jury was instructed that first degree murder is a willful, 2 deliberate, and premeditated killing with express malice and the specific intent to kill. There were no codefendants and no instructions for felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or imputed malice. The record of conviction establishes that in convicting Mauldin of first degree murder, the jury determined he was the actual killer, and he is therefore ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. (See People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 56 [section 1172.6 petition may be summarily denied when the record of conviction establishes as a matter of law that the jury determined the defendant was the actual killer].) We acknowledge that the superior court denied Mauldin’s petition without holding a hearing. Additionally, in concluding Mauldin failed to state a prima facie case for relief, the superior court’s order discussed the statement of facts from the opinion in Mauldin’s direct appeal. To the extent the superior court did not strictly comply with section 1172.6 in these respects we find any error harmless because Mauldin is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973; People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706, 714.) Mauldin’s remaining contentions in his supplemental brief are also unpersuasive. He contends the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 by withholding exculpatory evidence. He also contends police violated Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 during his interrogation by failing to inform him of his right to remain silent. A section 1172.6 petition, however, is not an opportunity to relitigate alleged errors that occurred during the underlying investigation or at trial. (See People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [“The mere filing of a section [1172.6] petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of 3 trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings.”].) DISPOSITION The order denying Mauldin’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26