People v. Raynoha CA4/1

Filed 4/19/22 P. v. Raynoha CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078748

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD173300)

DAVID ANTHONY RAYNOHA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Valerie G. Wass, 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, Steve Oetting and Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, David Raynoha entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to testify against his codefendants. In return for his cooperation,

Raynoha was allowed to plead guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, and the parties agreed to a sentence of 15 years to life. Because of the nature of the plea agreement, Raynoha was required to testify to the details of the crime as the factual basis of the plea. Raynoha was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. In 2020, Raynoha filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, and reviewed the record of conviction. The court denied the petition by written order without first issuing an order to show cause (OSC) and holding an evidentiary hearing. The court determined the record of conviction showed Raynoha acted with reckless indifference to human life and thus his petition did not state a prima facie case for resentencing under section 1170.95. Raynoha filed a timely notice of appeal. Raynoha contends and the Attorney General agrees that the court erred in finding Raynoha ineligible for relief as a matter of law at the prima facie stage of review. Essentially, the parties agree the trial court engaged in evidentiary weighing of the evidence in the record of conviction. After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage of review. Accordingly, we will accept the Attorney General’s concession and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing. STATEMENT OF FACTS The change of plea contains the admissions made by Raynoha, which served as the factual basis for the plea. Respondent has accurately