People v. Mendez CA2/7
B304811
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- Pedro Mendez was tried and convicted in 1993 of second degree murder for shooting and killing his wife; the jury found true that he personally used a firearm. He was sentenced to 20 years to life.
- Prosecution evidence: during an argument Mendez placed a gun to his wife’s head and fired; Mendez testified the killing was accidental, but a custodial admission in Mexicali that he intentionally shot her was introduced in rebuttal.
- The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Jury instructions included premeditated and unpremeditated murder and manslaughter; no felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences instructions were given.
- In 2019 Mendez petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437 relief) seeking vacatur/resentencing, alleging he was convicted under felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
- The People opposed, attaching the appellate opinion and arguing Mendez was the actual killer and thus ineligible. The superior court appointed counsel for Mendez, denied the petition on prima facie review, and Mendez appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Mendez was ineligible for §1170.95 relief as a matter of law because the record of conviction established he was the actual killer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Mendez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly relied on factual statements in the prior appellate opinion when deciding prima facie eligibility under §1170.95 | The appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction and may be considered to show Mendez was the actual killer, making him ineligible | Statements in the appellate opinion are hearsay and biased and thus not admissible to deny the petition | Court held appellate opinions are part of the record of conviction and may be considered as reliable hearsay in postconviction §1170.95 proceedings; reliance was proper |
| Whether the court must accept the petition’s factual allegations as true at the prima facie stage even if contradicted by the record | People argued the court may reject petition assertions that are refuted by readily ascertainable facts in the record | Mendez argued the court was required to accept all petition allegations as true when determining prima facie status | Court held the trial court need not credit petition allegations that are untrue as a matter of law if the record of conviction readily refutes them |
| Whether Mendez is eligible for §1170.95 relief because he was convicted as an aider/abettor under felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences doctrines | People argued Mendez was the actual killer (direct perpetrator), not convicted under those doctrines, so ineligible | Mendez sought relief claiming conviction rested on theories now narrowed by SB 1437 | Court held Mendez was convicted as the actual shooter and therefore ineligible for §1170.95 relief; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (describing SB 1437’s elimination of the natural and probable consequences doctrine and narrowing of felony murder)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (2020) (record of conviction may be used at prima facie stage to deny §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Harris, 60 Cal.App.5th 939 (2021) (statements in prior appellate opinions are admissible as reliable hearsay in postconviction proceedings)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.App.5th 652 (2020) (§1170.95 is a resentencing/postconviction proceeding, not a de novo retrial; hearsay may be considered)
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (1998) (appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction and may be considered for collateral purposes)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (2020) (trial court may reject petition allegations refuted by readily ascertainable facts in the record at the prima facie stage)
- Gilmore v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.3d 416 (1991) (distinguished: prior appellate opinion treated as inadmissible hearsay in civil wrongful-death context but not controlling for postconviction relief)