People v. Balbuena CA3

Filed 5/24/21 P. v. Balbuena CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092002

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F11542)

v.

CARLINE BALBUENA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Carline Balbuena appeals from the trial court’s order denying her petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Defendant contends the trial court erred by summarily denying her petition after determining she failed to establish a prima facie case under the provisions of the statute. She argues the trial court should have issued an order to show cause and allowed the petition to proceed for full consideration on its merits. We agree the trial court erred in denying defendant’s petition and will remand the case for further proceedings.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Defendant’s Case In 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 assault on a child resulting in death (§ 273ab), and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life for the murder conviction plus six years for the child endangerment conviction. The court also imposed a term of 25 years to life for the assault on a child conviction but stayed execution of that term under section 654. On appeal, we affirmed the convictions but corrected errors regarding defendant’s custody credits and the abstract of judgment.2 (People v. Balbuena (Nov. 10, 2010, C060127) [nonpub. opn.] (Balbuena).) In our opinion, we laid out the evidence introduced at trial. In short, defendant had two young children. Codefendant James Morris, along with his young daughter, moved into defendant’s apartment to share expenses. Over the following months, defendant and codefendant abused defendant’s three-year-old son, culminating in his death. (Balbuena, supra, C060127 [at pp. 2-8].) In the appeal, defendant raised a variety of challenges to the jury instructions the trial court had provided. The court instructed the jury on several theories of liability, including defendant as the perpetrator, direct aider/abettor liability, and liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Balbuena, supra, C060127 [at pp. 23-26].) We were unable to determine which theory of liability was ultimately used to convict defendant, explaining: “Review of Balbuena’s claims of instructional errors, particularly