In re Miles
G046534
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- On June 29, 1998 three men robbed a Fullerton loan office; two employees (Patlan and Gomez) later identified Guy Miles from photo lineups and in court; no physical evidence tied Miles to the scene.
- Miles presented an alibi: multiple witnesses and records placed him in Las Vegas on the robbery date; he was arrested in Las Vegas and convicted at a consolidated trial primarily on eyewitness ID and gang evidence, receiving 75 years to life.
- Years later three codefendants (Teamer, Steward, Bailey) executed sworn statements and testimony confessing to the robbery and asserting Miles was not involved; Bailey refused live testimony but provided a declaration.
- Miles filed successive habeas petitions; while proceedings were pending the Legislature (effective Jan. 1, 2017) enacted Penal Code §1473(b)(3)(A), lowering the standard for habeas relief on new evidence to proof that new evidence is credible, material, timely, and "more likely than not" would have changed the outcome.
- The Court applied the amended statute, found the confessions were new, admissible for habeas purposes, credible overall, material, timely presented, and that they more likely than not would have produced an acquittal or hung jury; it granted the writ and vacated Miles’ convictions (prosecution may retry).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2017 amendment to §1473 applies to Miles’ pending petition | Miles: statute is procedural and applies to pending habeas petitions; should govern review | State: generally statutes are not retroactive; original higher judicial standard applies | Court: statute is procedural, applies to Miles’ pending petition (applied prospectively while case undecided) |
| Whether the confessions constitute "new evidence" (discoverable with due diligence) | Miles: confessions were discovered after trial, not discoverable earlier (codefendants not identified or unwilling to confess), thus qualify | State: confessions come from convicted felons and may be unreliable; delay/question of diligence | Court: confessions satisfy due-diligence requirement and qualify as new evidence |
| Admissibility of confessions, esp. Bailey’s out-of-court declaration (hearsay/unavailable) | Miles: confessions corroborate and are admissible for habeas review; Bailey’s statement is trustworthy and aligns with others | State: Bailey’s declaration is hearsay and Bailey refused to testify; statute of limitations undermines penal-interest inference | Court: for habeas purposes all three confessions deemed admissible/considered (Bailey’s statement considered trustworthy here), though admissibility at a future trial is for the trial court to decide |
| Whether the new evidence meets §1473(b)(3)(A) — credible, material, timely, and would have more likely than not changed outcome | Miles: confessions are credible, material, timely presented, and in this close ID-driven case would likely have led to acquittal or hung jury | State: eyewitness IDs were confident; confessor credibility is weak due to criminal histories and possible motives; jury already convicted | Court: confessions meet the statutory standard; given the close, ID-centric case they more likely than not would have changed the outcome — relief granted |
| Supplemental: Whether eyewitness ID procedures were so suggestive as to be false evidence | Miles (concurring): pretrial photo arrays and prosecutor conduct were unduly suggestive and produced materially false ID evidence | State: investigative procedures were not intentionally improper; IDs were reliable | Concurring opinion: found significant systemic lineup and pre-identification problems that likely produced unreliable IDs and were material to guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Johnson, 18 Cal.4th 447 (Cal. 1998) (articulated prior stringent standard for new-evidence habeas relief)
- In re Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709 (Cal. 1947) (new-evidence standard historically required showing evidence pointed "unerringly" to innocence)
- In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 (Cal. 1998) (timeliness/substantial delay standard for habeas petitions)
- In re Richards, 63 Cal.4th 291 (Cal. 2016) (analysis of "false evidence" and materiality under amended §1473)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (prejudice standard: reasonable probability the result would have been different)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968) (due process forbids identifications following impermissibly suggestive procedures)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967) (identification reliability and due process analysis)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (importance of lineup procedures; pretrial ID may determine identity issue)
- People v. Thomas, 54 Cal.4th 908 (Cal. 2012) (two-step test for unduly suggestive identification procedures)