People v. Cisneros CA4/2
E081819
Cal. Ct. App.Feb 9, 2024Background
- Edward Ramon Cisneros was convicted in 2012 of attempted murder of a police officer, assault with a firearm on multiple officers, robbery, burglary, and making a criminal threat, with firearm enhancements on several counts.
- The convictions stemmed from an armed robbery at a pizza shop, followed by a police shootout in which an officer and an innocent bystander were shot (the latter killed by police fire).
- A mistrial was declared for murder and several attempted murder counts; one robbery conviction was struck and others stayed in a prior appeal, but most convictions and enhancements were affirmed.
- Cisneros petitioned for resentencing under then-Penal Code §1170.95 (now §1172.6), arguing his attempted murder conviction was based on the now-invalid natural and probable consequences doctrine.
- The trial court denied his petition without appointing counsel, as required when a facially sufficient petition is filed; Cisneros did not have notice of the opposition and did not have the opportunity to respond.
- On appeal, the Attorney General conceded error, and the appellate court reviewed whether failing to appoint counsel was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Cisneros's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was denial of counsel at the petition stage error? | Trial court could deny at prima facie stage w/o counsel | Petitioner was entitled to counsel at this stage | Error: counsel must be appointed if requested in a compliant petition |
| Was the error harmless because Cisneros was ineligible for resentencing? | Defendant excluded due to peace officer victim and §189(f) | Section 189(f) inapplicable to attempted murder, eligibility not rebutted | Not harmless: ineligibility not established; record does not refute petition |
| Does §1172.6 allow relief for attempted murder convictions based on natural/probable consequences doctrine? | No if peace officer is victim, via §189(f) | Yes; §189(f) applies to murder, not attempted murder | Relief available for attempted murder if based on improper doctrine |
| Must the matter be remanded if proceedings were improperly truncated? | No remand necessary due to legal ineligibility | Remand for new proceedings with counsel is required | Remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (establishes the mandatory appointment of counsel and briefing before denying §1172.6 petitions)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (amendment of the natural and probable consequences doctrine for murder liability)
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (Senate Bill 1437’s restrictions on felony-murder rule)
- People v. Billa, 31 Cal.4th 1064 (Cal. 2003) (no crime of attempted felony murder)