People v. Salazar CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 21, 2023 No. B321773Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in denying the defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition without an evidentiary hearing because the record of conviction did not establish as a matter of law that the defendant was ineligible for relief.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's section 1172.6 petition without issuing an order to show cause?
Does the record of conviction establish as a matter of law that the defendant is ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6?

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This was prejudicial error, because the record of conviction does not establish as a matter of law that defendant was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.”

“We therefore agree with the parties that the record does not demonstrate that defendant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law, and that defendant met his prima facia burden under section 1172.6”

Filed 3/21/23 P. v. Salazar CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B321773

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA036172) v.

EDGAR RAFAEL SALAZAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hector E. Gutierrez, Judge. Reversed. Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Blake Armstrong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION As the parties agree and we concur in the relief requested in this appeal, we decide this matter by memorandum disposition. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) In 1996, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Edgar Rafael Salazar of first degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, finding true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the offenses. In aggregate, the court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. In 1998, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction. (People v. Salazar (Mar. 3, 1998, B109627 [nonpub. opn.].) In 2021, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 After appointing counsel to represent defendant and considering briefing submitted by the parties, the trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause pursuant to section 1172.6, subdivision (c). The court found defendant had not made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief because the record of conviction (including the appellate opinion affirming defendant’s conviction, on which the court relied)2 showed the only theory upon which

People v. Salazar CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B321773

EDGAR RAFAEL SALAZAR,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WEINGART, J.

AI Brief