People v. Davies CA3

Filed 6/4/24 P. v. Davies CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099311

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 67151)

v.

CARL DAVIES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Carl Davies appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6. (Unless otherwise stated, statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code.) Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion. He contends the trial court erroneously relied on this court’s opinion from defendant’s appeal of his underlying conviction to determine that he was

1

the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief. The People concede the error, and we will reverse and remand the matter with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d).

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In 1987, a jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true that defendant personally used a knife during the crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 16 years to life. On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Davies (Sept. 30, 1988, C002846) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Counsel was appointed, and the prosecution filed a brief arguing defendant was ineligible for relief because he actually and personally killed the victim. The prosecution attached multiple exhibits: (1) a copy of this court’s opinion from defendant’s appeal of his original conviction, (2) a portion of the jury instructions that does not include the instructions for murder, (3) the information, (4) the judgment form, and (5) the verdict forms. Defendant filed a reply arguing the trial court could not rely on the statement of facts in this court’s prior opinion in determining whether defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he was the actual killer. The trial court held a prima facie hearing in August 2023 and subsequently issued a written order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing. The trial court noted this court’s prior opinion in the matter stated there was “no dispute” that the victim died due to the wounds that defendant inflicted with a knife, and the only issue for the jury was whether defendant acted in self-defense or in retaliation. The court then reasoned that a defendant who was the actual killer and acted with express or implied malice is ineligible for resentencing. The court found it could rely on the record of conviction, including this court’s prior opinion, in analyzing whether defendant was eligible for relief. The court