93 Cal.App.5th 915
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Erica Estrada was convicted of felony murder with a robbery-murder special circumstance; Banks later clarified the special-circumstance test.
- After SB 1437, Estrada filed a resentencing petition under Penal Code §1172.6 (formerly §1170.95), alleging ineligibility for murder liability under the amended law.
- The trial court (Judge Millington) denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, reasoning the special circumstance precluded relief; Estrada appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the denial and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and proceed under §1172.6.
- Upon remittitur the case was assigned back to Judge Millington; Estrada filed a postappeal peremptory challenge under Code Civ. Proc. §170.6(a)(2) to disqualify him.
- The trial court denied the peremptory challenge, finding the §1172.6 subject hearing on remand is not a “new trial” under §170.6(a)(2); the Court of Appeal (on transfer) denied writ relief, affirming that conclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §1172.6(d)(3) subject hearing after reversal/remand is a “new trial” for purposes of §170.6(a)(2) | The subject hearing functions like a new (court) trial because the prosecutor must prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt and the court acts as independent factfinder | The subject hearing is a resentencing procedure, not a new trial; §1172.6 contemplates using the original sentencing judge and does not trigger §170.6(a)(2) relief | Held: The subject hearing is not a “new trial” under §170.6(a)(2); peremptory challenge denied |
| Whether §1172.6’s requirement that the original sentencing judge hear the petition forecloses a postappeal peremptory challenge | Estrada argued §1172.6 does not categorically bar a postappeal peremptory challenge | The People argued the plain language and purpose of §1172.6 require the original judge, limiting §170.6 applicability | Court assumed (without deciding) §170.6 might otherwise apply but resolved case on the narrower ground that the hearing is not a “new trial” and thus §170.6(a)(2) does not authorize the postappeal disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1245 (Supreme Court of California) (resentencing/resentencing-type hearings are not a "new trial" under §170.6)
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Supreme Court of California) (SB 1437 created a resentencing mechanism under §1172.6)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Supreme Court of California) (clarified special-circumstance standard)
- People v. Gonzalez, 5 Cal.5th 186 (Supreme Court of California) (related appellate history concerning special-circumstance evidence)
- People v. Santos, 53 Cal.App.5th 467 (Court of Appeal) (statute prefers the original sentencing judge to hear §1172.6 petitions)
- Andrew M. v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.App.5th 1116 (Court of Appeal) (conditional reversal/remand for a transfer/hearing is not a new trial under §170.6)