People v. Hodges CA2/6
B305465
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021

Background

  • In 2000 Desmond Alexander was shot and killed; Odell Hodges was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder.
  • The prosecution argued Hodges was the shooter; the jury acquitted the special allegation that Hodges personally and intentionally discharged the fatal firearm (the 12022.53(d) allegation was found NOT TRUE).
  • In 2019 Hodges petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code §1170.95, asserting he was not the actual killer and could not now be convicted under the revised law (Senate Bill No. 1437).
  • At the initial §1170.95 stage the trial court asked defense counsel if Hodges was the actual shooter; counsel effectively conceded, and the court summarily denied the petition without considering the jury’s finding or Hodges’s verified petition.
  • The People did not assert Hodges was the shooter in opposition; on appeal the Court of Appeal held the court’s summary denial rested on an incorrect factual finding and that Hodges was denied a fair first‑stage §1170.95 hearing and effective counsel.
  • The Court reversed and remanded for a new §1170.95 hearing so the trial court can assess eligibility consistent with the record and applicable law.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Was summary denial of §1170.95 petition proper when court relied on belief Hodges was the shooter? Trial court’s factual finding was permissible; appellate court may affirm by substituting findings. The court relied on an incorrect fact—jury found Hodges did not personally discharge the fatal weapon—and thus summary denial was improper. Reversed: court erred; must consider the record and petitioner’s verified statements before summary dismissal.
Did Hodges have a right to effective counsel at the §1170.95 first stage and was counsel ineffective? No Sixth Amendment right in postconviction; counsel’s concession was not prejudicial. Hodges had a due process right to appointed and effective counsel; counsel’s inaccurate concession prejudiced eligibility. Held Hodges was entitled to effective representation; counsel’s concession was deficient and prejudicial at the first stage.
Can prosecution rely on alternative theories (direct aider/abettor liability) to defeat eligibility without further factfinding? Hodges could still be liable as a direct aider and abettor, so he’s ineligible. The record does not conclusively establish aider/abettor intent; jury rejected shooter theory; SB 1437 and case law changes require further inquiry. Trial court cannot resolve these disputes at first stage; must issue an order to show cause and allow evidentiary development.
Did Hodges make a prima facie showing under §1170.95 (including claim the natural and probable consequences doctrine applied)? SB 1437 relief targets NPC cases; claim NPC not applicable here. Hodges alleged NPC doctrine applied and jury instructions contained NPC language; that supports a prima facie showing. Court treated the verified petition and record as sufficient to preclude summary denial and remanded for full §1170.95 proceedings.

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Anthony, 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 (explaining SB 1437’s purpose to limit murder liability for non‑killers)
  • People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (verified §1170.95 petition may preclude summary dismissal)
  • People v. Cervantes, 44 Cal.App.5th 884 (discussing summary dismissal of frivolous or ineligible §1170.95 petitions)
  • People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (same)
  • People v. Cornelius, 44 Cal.App.5th 54 (same)
  • People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798 (due process requires fair §1170.95 proceedings)
  • People v. Rouse, 245 Cal.App.4th 292 (right to counsel in post‑judgment proceedings grounded in due process)
  • Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152 (right to appointed counsel in certain appellate/postconviction contexts)
  • Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (right to counsel in appellate proceedings under due process)
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
  • People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (limits on imposing murder liability on non‑killers)
  • People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (standards for malice/reckless indifference and major participant analysis)
  • People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (aider‑and‑abettor instruction must require proof of malice to impose murder liability)
  • People v. Rivera, 62 Cal.App.5th 217 (trial court should not question petitioner’s evidence at first §1170.95 stage when record is not conclusive)
  • People v. Tarkington, 49 Cal.App.5th 892 (take petitioner’s factual allegations as true at prima facie stage)
Read the full case