People v. Avent CA3

Filed 12/30/25 P. v. Avent CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101761

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 74800)

v.

RUFUS ADOLPHUS AVENT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Rufus Adolphus Avent appeals from a post-evidentiary hearing order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. He contends the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting his parole hearing transcripts and comprehensive risk assessments because they contain self-incriminating statements that were (1) subject to use immunity and (2) involuntary. We disagree with his first contention and deem the second forfeited and affirm the order. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1987, defendant pled guilty to second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and the trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison.

1

After the enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), defendant in 2019 filed a petition for resentencing. The trial court initially denied the petition at the prima facie stage. We reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause. (People v. Avent (Nov. 15, 2022, C093581) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, defendant filed a motion in limine for an evidentiary hearing, seeking to exclude his statements made in prior parole hearings, among other things. The People moved to admit comprehensive risk assessments prepared by psychologists for the board of parole hearings without live witness testimony. The People intended to impeach defendant with the statements he made in the comprehensive risk assessments. The trial court admitted the parole hearing transcripts and comprehensive risk assessments over defendant’s objections. Regarding the comprehensive risk assessments, the trial court stated it would consider only defendant’s statements to the examining psychologists. After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found defendant guilty under a currently valid theory of murder and denied the petition. Defendant timely appeals. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting his statements made in the comprehensive risk assessments and at the parole hearings because they were (1) subject to use immunity and (2) involuntary. We disagree with his first contention and deem the second forfeited. In 2018, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1437 to redefine murder liability. (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449.) Senate Bill No. 1437 also added section 1172.6, which created a procedure for those convicted of murder under the former law to petition the trial court for resentencing. (Curiel, at p. 449.) Under section 1172.6, once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the trial court “must in most cases convene an evidentiary hearing where the People bear the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the