People v. Padilla CA4/3

Filed 3/2/22 P. v. Padilla CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059702

v. (Super. Ct. No. 94SF0588)

RAMON PADILLA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G. Macias, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Lynne G. McGinnis and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Ramon Padilla was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit that offense. Although we long ago affirmed the judgment on appeal (see People v. Nottage, et al. (Mar. 10, 1998, G018824) [nonpub. opn.]), appellant contends the trial court erred in 1 denying his recent petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. As respondent concedes, the contention has merit. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial order and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In exchange for $500, appellant procured a gun for Arturo Montes to shoot Dirk Houston. Appellant and Montes then drove to Houston’s business, where Montes shot and killed Houston with the gun. Two decades after his convictions were affirmed on appeal, appellant petitioned to vacate his murder conviction and to be resentenced under section 1170.95. The petition alleged appellant was convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and he could not be convicted of murder today given how the murder laws have changed since the time he was convicted. However, the trial court determined appellant was ineligible for resentencing because the evidence revealed he assisted Montes with the intent to kill. Therefore, it summarily denied appellant’s petition for failure to present a prima facie case for relief. DISCUSSION Appellant seeks reversal on the basis the trial court improperly weighed the evidence at the prima facie stage of the proceedings. He contends there is nothing in the record of conviction to prove that the jury actually found he acted with the intent to kill so as to disqualify him from obtaining resentencing relief under section 1170.95. The Attorney General agrees, and so do we.