California Court of Appeal Mar 14, 2022 No. E077190Unpublished
Filed 3/14/22 P. v. Torres 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E077190
v. (Super.Ct.No. INF051722)
DANIEL CARDONA TORRES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge.
Reversed.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE. Denied.
Cynthia M. Jones, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel Rogers, Alan L.
Amann, and Lise S. Jacobson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Petitioner Daniel Cardona Torres was charged with murder (among other crimes);
he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of manslaughter (among other crimes). In
2021, he filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. 1 The trial court denied
the petition on the ground that, at the time, section 1170.95 did not apply to a
1170.95 so that it now provides that “[a] person convicted of . . . manslaughter may file a
petition . . . to have the petitioner’s . . . manslaughter conviction vacated . . . .”
(§ 1170.95, subd. (a).) As applicable here, such a person must allege that (1) he or she
“accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which [he or she] could have been convicted of
murder or attempted murder,” and (2) he or she “could not presently be convicted of
murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189” made by
SB 1437. (§ 1170.95, subds. (a)(2), (a)(3).)
SB 775 applies in all cases not yet final on appeal. (People v. Porter (2022) 73
Cal.App.5th 644, 652; see generally In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744-746.)
Under SB 775, petitioner is no longer categorically ineligible for relief.
There is no need for further briefing on this point. (See Gov. Code, § 68081.) In
his opening brief, petitioner noted that SB 775 was pending and, if enacted, would entitle
him to relief. In their respondent’s brief, filed in September 2021, the People
acknowledged that SB 775 was pending; they argued merely that it had not yet been
enacted. SB 775 was enacted in October 2021. In his reply brief, filed in November
2021, petitioner pointed this out. Thus, the People were well aware that SB 775 was
looming, and they had the opportunity to raise any argument they might have had that it
would not entitle petitioner to relief.
5
Accordingly, we will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Petitioner’s
other contentions are moot. 2
III
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is reversed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
CODRINGTON J.
2 Petitioner filed a request for judicial notice of certain legislative intent materials related to SB 775. As SB 775 is now in effect, and its application to petitioner is not ambiguous, these materials are irrelevant. We therefore deny the request. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.)
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant convicted of manslaughter is entitled to the benefit of the amendment to Penal Code section 1170.95 enacted by Senate Bill No. 775, which expanded eligibility for resentencing to include manslaughter convictions.
Issues
Whether a defendant convicted of manslaughter is eligible for resentencing under the amended Penal Code section 1170.95.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this ameliorative amendment.”
“SB 775 amended section 1170.95 so that it now provides that “[a] person convicted of . . . manslaughter may file a petition . . . to have the petitioner’s . . . manslaughter conviction vacated . . . .””