California Court of Appeal May 28, 2025 No. E083422Unpublished
Filed 5/28/25 P. v. Ruiz CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083422
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA12836)
ALFREDO AVILEZ RUIZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Reed Webb, 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, Melissa Mandel and Seth M.
Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Alfredo Avilez Ruiz appeals the summary denial of his
petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6. He contends the plea
form, parts of the preliminary hearing testimony, and his statements at the Board of Parole
Hearing are not considered to be part of the record of conviction at the prima facie stage.
who, despite having access to counsel upon submission of a facially sufficient petition,
offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief, in response to a record of
conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has
not . . . made a prima facie showing.’ [Citation.]
“As a result, when the record of conviction shows relief under section 1172.6 is
unavailable at the prima facie stage—whether it be a preliminary hearing as in Patton or
sworn statements in a guilty plea form or a plea hearing as in the instant case—petitioners
8
‘have the burden of coming forward with nonconclusory allegations to alert the
prosecution and the court to what issues an evidentiary hearing would entail.’ [Citation.]
Because the petitioner offered only conclusory allegations in response to such a record,
Patton concluded he failed to satisfy his burden to make a prima facie case for relief.
[Citation.]” (People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 930.) Nonetheless, “out of an
abundance of caution,” Patton remanded to allow the petitioner, within 30 days of
remand, to plead “additional facts” in support of his “amended petition.” (Patton, supra,
17 Cal.5th at pp. 569-570, citing § 1172.6, subd. (c) [petitioner has 30 days to reply to the
People’s response to a facially valid petition].)
Here, defendant made no factual assertions whatsoever in the lower court to
support his conclusory allegations that he could not be convicted of the offenses he was
charged with committing. Conversely, on appeal, he highlights sections of the surviving
witnesses’ testimonies that he contends do “not conclusively rule out that the hand that
held the gun could not have . . . belonged to one of the other two occupants in the truck.”3
3 In his reply brief, defendant points out there was a codefendant, Johnny Ray Flores, who was the driver of the truck, which provides the “possibility that there was someone else who may have been the actual killer.” Defendant notes one surviving witness, who identified defendant as the window-seat passenger, testified that defendant had one hand outside the door holding it closed, and when the gun was pointed out the window, he (the witness) ducked down. The witness stated defendant “stuck his whole [right] hand” out of the window, and there was a female seated between the driver and the passenger. A second surviving witness could not make an in-court identification of the shooter, but testified it was the passenger in the truck. “I looked at the passenger of the truck. And I saw the gun.” The shooter was holding the gun “in his right hand.” This witness only recalled two people being in the truck. The third surviving witness testified that “[r]ight when [Donald] asked [the passenger,] he just pulled out the - - the gun.” This witness also believed there were three people inside the truck.
9
He argues the “state of the record compels a grant of an evidentiary hearing to permit
factfinding accompanied with the opportunity for the prosecutor and the petitioner to
offer new or additional evidence to meet their respective burdens.” We disagree.
However, since defendant did not have the benefit of Patton’s guidance during the prima
facie stage before the superior court, we will remand to allow him, within 30 days of
remand, to plead “additional facts” in support of his petition. (Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th
at pp. 569-570; People v. Glass, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 925.)
III. DISPOSITION
We remand this matter to the superior court with directions to consider any
“additional facts” should defendant, within 30 days of that remand, seek to supplement
his petition. (Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 570.) We otherwise conditionally affirm the
order denying his resentencing petition.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J.
FIELDS J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a petitioner who offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to resentencing relief in response to a record of conviction demonstrating a still-valid theory of liability fails to make a prima facie showing. The court conditionally affirmed the denial of the petition but remanded to allow the defendant an opportunity to plead additional facts.
Issues
Whether a preliminary hearing transcript may be relied upon to deny a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage.
Whether the defendant made a prima facie showing for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Disposition. Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“a “petitioner who offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief under section 1172.6, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing.””
“Patton concluded a trial court conducting a prima facie review could rely on ‘unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts’ from a preliminary hearing transcript to refute the petition’s ‘conclusory, checkbox allegations.’”