People v. Curry CA1/4

Filed 10/3/24 P. v. Curry CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A167782 v. (Contra Costa County Super. RENARD RICKY CURRY, Ct. No. 05001407857) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Renard Ricky Curry was sentenced to 25 years and eight months in prison after he pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) with an allegation of personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and four other felonies. When Curry filed a petition for resentencing years later under former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6), alleging that he met the requirements of the statute, the trial court denied the petition for Curry’s purported failure to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) In this opinion, we review independently Curry’s challenge to the denial of his petition. (People v.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Beaudreaux (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1238.) Because he made the requisite prima facie showing before the trial court, we reverse the denial of Curry’s petition and remand the matter for further proceedings. For resentencing under section 1172.6, “the process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met ([§ 1172.6], subd. (b)(1)(A)), including that ‘[t]he petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to [] [s]ection 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019’ . . . .” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708.) Then, “[a]fter the parties have had an opportunity to submit briefings, the court . . . hold[s] a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) This “prima facie inquiry . . . is limited. Like the analogous prima facie inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings, ‘ “the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. If so, the court must issue an order to show cause.” ’ [Citations.] ‘[A] court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.’ [Citations.] ‘However, if the record, including the court’s own documents, “contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the petition,” then “the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.” ’ ”2 (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971.) In other words, a “ ‘ “denial at [the prima