People v. Martinez-Costa CA3, C089499

Cleo Martinez-Costa was convicted of first degree murder and a true finding was made on the robbery-murder special circumstance (Pen. Code, § 190.2(a)(17)); she was sentenced to life without parole.
The jury found, consistent with CALCRIM No. 703, that the defendant either was the actual killer, intended to kill, or (if not the killer) was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life.
In 2019 Martinez-Costa filed a Penal Code § 1170.95 petition seeking resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437; she checked boxes alleging felony-murder liability but did not affirmatively aver she was not the actual killer, did not intend to kill, or was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
The trial court found no procedural defect, appointed counsel, granted the People more time to respond, but then summarily denied the petition ex parte on the ground the jury’s true finding of the § 190.2(a)(17) special circumstance precluded relief.
Martinez-Costa appealed, arguing the court’s summary denial without briefing or an evidentiary hearing (after appointing counsel) violated due process and the right to effective assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that any procedural error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury’s special-circumstance finding necessarily disqualified her from relief under SB 1437.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying a § 1170.95 petition after appointing counsel and before briefing/hearing	People: The court correctly applied the record and the jury’s true finding to deny the petition	Martinez-Costa: Summary denial without counsel advocacy, briefing, or evidentiary hearing violated due process and effective assistance	Any procedural error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; affirm denial
Whether the jury’s true finding of the § 190.2(a)(17) special circumstance bars relief under SB 1437/§ 1170.95	People: The special-circumstance finding shows the jury found defendant was at least a major participant who acted with reckless indifference, which SB 1437 excludes from relief	Martinez-Costa: She could have presented evidence/argument to challenge eligibility if allowed to proceed to briefing/hearing	The jury’s finding satisfies SB 1437’s disqualification (major participant + reckless indifference); relief unavailable as a matter of law

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (trial courts may review record of conviction at prima facie stage; need not first appoint counsel)
People v. Cooper, 54 Cal.App.5th 106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (court should not resolve eligibility without appointment of counsel and opportunity for briefing)