In re Miles, G046534M

Background

In 1998 Guy Miles was convicted of an armed robbery based principally on two eyewitness identifications; no physical evidence tied him to the scene and several witnesses placed him in Las Vegas that day. He was sentenced to 75 years to life.
Years later three men (Teamer, Steward, Bailey) produced declarations or testimony admitting they committed the robbery and stating Miles was not involved; two testified at habeas hearings, Bailey provided an out‑of‑court declaration and refused to testify at the hearings.
Miles sought habeas relief in state court; a superior court and a referee found the confessions did not meet the preexisting (stringent) standard for new‑evidence habeas relief. Miles renewed the petition in the Court of Appeal.
While the petition was pending, the Legislature amended Penal Code §1473 to lower the new‑evidence habeas standard: relief may be granted where credible, material new evidence, presented without substantial delay, is of such decisive force that it would more likely than not have changed the outcome at trial.
The Court of Appeal applied the new statute to Miles’ pending petition, found the three confessions qualified as admissible new evidence (with limits on Bailey’s declaration), and concluded by a preponderance that the confessions probably would have produced an acquittal or hung jury; the court granted the writ and vacated Miles’ convictions (prosecution may retry).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended §1473 applies to Miles’ pending petition	Miles: statute is procedural and applies to pending habeas petitions; should lower burden	People: generally statutes are not retroactive; but conceded application here	Court: statute is procedural and 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 and could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence; meet §1473(b)(3)(B)	People: some suspects were known earlier; question whether petitioner delayed	Court: confessions could not reasonably have been discovered before trial by due diligence (codefendant status, later identifications, timing).
Admissibility of confessions (Bailey hearsay/unavailability)	Miles: treat confessions as admissible for habeas purposes; witnesses available to testify at retrial	People: Bailey’s out‑of‑court declaration is hearsay and unreliable; unavailability uncertain; statute of limitations undermines penal‑interest reliability	Court: Teamer and Steward testimony admissible; Bailey’s declaration treated as admissible for the limited purpose of the habeas proceeding due to corroboration and circumstances, but trial court not bound on admissibility at retrial.
Whether confessions meet §1473(b)(3)(A) (credible, material, timely, and would more likely than not change outcome)	Miles: confessions are credible, corroborated by other evidence and alibi witnesses; trial closely contested on identity so confessions would probably have led to acquittal or hung jury	People: eyewitness identifications were consistent and reliable; confessors are felons with motives to lie; credibility problems and impeachment diminish impact	Court: on balance confessions were sufficiently credible and material, presented without substantial delay, and likely would have changed the outcome (preponderance) — writ granted.
(Concurring) Whether false eyewitness identification independently warrants relief	Miles (alternative): pretrial photo arrays and prosecutor conduct were unduly suggestive; in‑court ID was tainted	People: identifications were valid; procedures adequate	Concurring judge: agreed relief could be supported on false‑identification theory given multiple suggestive lineup practices, feedback, and carryover effects; but majority rested on §1473 new‑evidence ground.

Key Cases Cited

In re Johnson, 18 Cal.4th 447 (Cal. 1998) (previously required new evidence to point "unerringly" to innocence)
In re Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709 (Cal. 1947) (historic standard that new evidence must completely undermine prosecution case)
In re Fields, 51 Cal.3d 1063 (Cal. 1990) (habeas proceedings subject to evidentiary rules; hearsay considerations)
In re Hardy, 41 Cal.4th 977 (Cal. 2007) (reasonable diligence requirement for newly discovered evidence)
In re Richards, 63 Cal.4th 291 (Cal. 2016) (analysis of "false evidence" materiality under amended §1473)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) ("reasonable probability" prejudice standard)
People v. Thomas, 54 Cal.4th 908 (Cal. 2012) (due process test for suggestive pretrial identifications)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967) (identification procedures must not be unduly suggestive to avoid substantial likelihood of misidentification)