People v. Morales CA2/4

Filed 5/19/25 P. v. Morales CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B335175

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A361773 v.

JOSE RAMON MORALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shelly Torrealba, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION1

The trial court denied Defendant-Appellant Jose Ramon Morales’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied relief as a matter of law, noting the record demonstrated Morales was the sole defendant, and was convicted of murder as the actual killer, not under an imputed-malice theory of liability. The court thus concluded that Morales’s record of conviction made him prima facie ineligible for relief under section 1172.6, subdivision (c), obviating the need for an evidentiary hearing under subdivision (d). On appeal, Morales’s sole contention is that the trial court could not, as a matter of law, rely upon the transcript of a preliminary hearing in making that prima facie determination. Our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (Patton) resolved this issue. Patton holds that a trial court may properly rely on uncontroverted evidence in a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory allegations in determining whether a petitioner has stated a prima facie entitlement to relief under section 1172.6. (Patton, supra, at p. 564.) Following Patton, we reject Morales’s claim of error. However, also following Patton, we remand the matter to the trial court to allow Morales to file an amended petition if he wishes to do so. (Id. at pp. 569-570.)