People v. Buford CA3
C100140
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 29, 2025Background
- Terry Buford was convicted by a jury of several crimes, including attempted murder of a fetus, assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, kidnapping for robbery, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit murder of a fetus.
- Buford's 2020 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (now 1172.6) was denied because the court found he had the intent to kill, making him ineligible for resentencing relief.
- On appeal, the court considered the impact of Senate Bill No. 775 (which expanded the reach of section 1172.6 to include attempted murder), but still found Buford ineligible due to the jury’s findings about his intent.
- After denial and appeals were exhausted, Buford later filed a motion to "recall the previously filed Petition for Resentencing" and cited further changes in law, including the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) and SB 775.
- The trial court denied his motion, finding no jurisdiction to reconsider the petition after the appellate decision and that no statute authorized successive motions in these circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Buford's Argument | Prosecution's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to file a second 1172.6 petition based on SB 775 or RJA | SB 775 and RJA are material legal changes that justify reconsideration | No statutory basis to relitigate after final appellate decision | No right to relitigate after first petition is final; prior review addressed all relevant legal changes |
| Entitlement to recall and reconsider denial of petition | Farfan allows a second petition if based on new law | Finality principles preclude reconsideration without statutory basis | Court's prior decision was final and already considered new law; no new basis for another review |
| Application of the Racial Justice Act (RJA) | RJA is a new substantive law justifying further proceedings | RJA is inapplicable and no evidence or allegations of RJA violations | RJA did not apply at the time and Buford failed to make a specific showing |
| Jurisdiction of trial court while appeal pending | Silent on this point | Appeal removed issue from trial court's jurisdiction | Court lacked jurisdiction to revisit the matter pending appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hampton, 41 Cal.App.5th 840 (finality of judgments and orders in criminal cases)
- People v. DeLouize, 32 Cal.4th 1223 (policies underlying finality in criminal procedure)
- People v. Perez, 23 Cal.3d 545 (effect of appeal on trial court jurisdiction)
- People v. Cunningham, 25 Cal.4th 926 (effect of appeal on trial court jurisdiction)