In re Adock CA3

California Court of Appeal Jan 20, 2023 No. C089547AMUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant's pre-Banks and Clark special circumstance findings do not preclude a prima facie case for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, and that the trial court committed prejudicial error by denying the petition without appointing counsel or receiving briefing.

Issues

Do pre-Banks and Clark special circumstance findings preclude a prima facie case for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6?
Did the trial court commit prejudicial error by denying the resentencing petition without appointing counsel or receiving briefing?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a jury’s special circumstance findings made before Banks and Clark “do not preclude a defendant from making out a prima facie case for relief under Senate Bill 1437.”

“The trial court erred further by determining that defendant had not stated a prima facie case without first providing counsel, receiving briefing, and holding a hearing”

Filed 1/20/23 In re Adock CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

In re MARK ADOCK on Habeas Corpus. C089547 (Super. Ct. No. ) 05F01670

THE PEOPLE, 3 Crim.C089581 Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION ON TRANSFER v. MODIFICATION MARK ADOCK, [NO CHANGE IN Defendant and Appellant. JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 13, 2023, be modified as follows:

1. Delete the second sentence in footnote 1 on page 1 beginning with “Effective June 20, 2022,” and insert the following sentence in its place:

Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was recodified without substantive change to section 1172.6. This modification does not change the judgment.

BY THE COURT:

HULL, Acting P.J.

DUARTE, J.

RENNER, J.

Filed 1/13/23 In re Adock CA3 (unmodified opinion) Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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) ----

In re MARK ADOCK on Habeas Corpus. C089547 (Super. Ct. No. ) 05F01670

THE PEOPLE, 3 Crim.C089581 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

In re Adock CA3

AI Brief

DUARTE, J.

RENNER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

DUARTE, J.

RENNER, J.

AI Brief