C097977A
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 2, 2025Background
- Defendant Tavares Jackson pleaded no contest in 2021 to attempted murder and admitted enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury and personally using a firearm; the preliminary hearing transcript provided the factual basis for the plea.
- After Senate Bill 775, Jackson petitioned under former § 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) seeking resentencing, claiming his conviction could have rested on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
- The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, concluding the preliminary hearing showed Jackson was the actual shooter and therefore ineligible for relief.
- A prior Court of Appeal opinion reversed and remanded, but the California Supreme Court transferred the matter back for reconsideration in light of People v. Patton.
- Applying Patton, the Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s denial and remanded, allowing Jackson 30 days to amend his petition with additional nonconclusory facts if he chooses.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Jackson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a trial court rely on preliminary hearing transcript at the §1172.6 prima facie stage to refute a petition? | Transcript facts can be considered as part of the record of conviction to screen meritless petitions. | Transcript may contain law-enforcement hearsay and should not be treated as unchallengeable; facts were not relief-foreclosing. | Yes — under Patton the court may reference unchallenged, relief‑foreclosing facts in the record of conviction at the prima facie stage. |
| Did Jackson make a prima facie showing for §1172.6 relief? | The record (prelim transcript, single charged defendant, victim’s wife testimony) shows he was the shooter—no prima facie showing. | He could have been prosecuted under natural and probable consequences; self‑defense allegations in PSR show disputed facts. | No — Jackson’s allegations were conclusory and did not supply specific, nonconclusory facts to create a dispute; he failed to make a prima facie showing. |
| Was the trial court’s reliance on the preliminary hearing an improper factfinding exercise? | Reliance on undisputed record facts is not improper factfinding. | Reliance amounted to weighing evidence and using inadmissible prelim hearsay. | Not improper so long as facts are undisputed and refute the petition; Patton permits this. |
| Should the case be remanded to permit amendment of the petition post-Patton? | People do not oppose a limited remand to allow amendment. | Requests remand to plead additional specific facts (e.g., self-defense). | Yes — vacate denial and remand to permit Jackson 30 days to amend petition with additional facts consistent with Patton. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Patton, 17 Cal.5th 549 (Cal. 2025) (trial court may rely on unchallenged, relief‑foreclosing facts in the preliminary hearing transcript at the §1172.6 prima facie stage; remand may be appropriate to allow amendment).
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (prima facie inquiry is limited, very low bar; court may consult record of conviction but must not engage in factfinding).
- People v. Nguyen, 53 Cal.App.5th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (courts may consider preliminary hearing facts when assessing petitions).
- People v. Ervin, 72 Cal.App.5th 90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (appellate review of denial at prima facie stage is de novo).
- People v. Glass, 110 Cal.App.5th 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) (followed Patton and permitted limited remand to allow petitioner to amend petition with additional facts).