People v. Torres CA4/3

Filed 6/16/23 P. v. Torres 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G061580

v. (Super. Ct. No. 93CF3269)

RICHARD MARTINEZ TORRES, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Lynne G. McGinnis, and Susan Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Richard Martinez Torres appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now Pen. Code, 1 § 1172.6). In 1994, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of murder and one count of attempted murder. He also admitted he personally used a firearm during the commission of the offenses. The court sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of 27 years to life. We affirmed the judgment with modifications to the sentence on appeal. (People v. Torres (Dec. 18, 1995, G017512) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing. The court appointed counsel for defendant, received briefing from the parties, and conducted a prima facie hearing. After taking the matter under submission, the court summarily denied defendant’s petition for resentencing. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred by denying his petition because the court engaged in improper fact finding by relying on defendant’s guilty plea. He also argues the record does not conclusively establish he was precluded from relief. For the reasons below, we agree with defendant’s latter contention. We accordingly reverse the postjudgment order and remand for further proceedings.