69 Cal.App.5th 688
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Victim Cedric White was found entombed under a basement workbench in April 2004; autopsy showed blunt-head trauma. Defendant Elnora Myles had been living in White’s house and later used his identification to open accounts and make purchases.
- Myles was charged with murder and related financial offenses; she pleaded no contest to second degree murder in 2006 and received 15 years to life. The plea was supported by the preliminary hearing transcript.
- In 2019 Myles petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437). The court found a prima facie case and issued an order to show cause, then held an evidentiary hearing.
- The prosecution introduced a parole comprehensive risk assessment report and transcript of Myles’s parole suitability hearing in which Myles made postconviction admissions (including that she struck White and concealed his body).
- The trial court admitted those materials, found the case was not based on felony-murder or the natural-and-probable-consequences theory, and concluded Myles was the actual killer—denying § 1170.95 relief. Myles appealed, arguing the parole materials were not admissible “new or additional evidence,” were barred by Trujillo, and were entitled to Coleman-style use immunity.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: Myles forfeited some objections, the statute permits postconviction “new or additional evidence,” Trujillo did not bar their use here, Coleman-style immunity did not apply, and any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Myles’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility as “new or additional evidence” under § 1170.95(d)(3) | § 1170.95 expressly allows reliance on the record or offering new/additional evidence; parole materials qualify | Parole materials are not “new or additional evidence” under the statute and the statute should be limited to evidence available at the original proceeding | Myles forfeited this challenge below; on the merits the statute’s plain language and purpose permit postconviction evidence, so admission was proper |
| Applicability of People v. Trujillo (use of postplea admissions to prove elements) | Trujillo’s rule about probation/parole admissions increasing punishment does not apply to a § 1170.95 resentencing inquiry | Parole admissions cannot be used to prove culpability or elements of the crime under Trujillo | Trujillo is distinguishable; § 1170.95 is a resentencing/lenity procedure allowing consideration of new evidence |
| Coleman-style use immunity for parole/risk-assessment statements | Parole statements were voluntary and not compelled; parole participation not required | Statements at parole suitability/risk assessment should be excluded as substantively admissible evidence under Coleman and related authorities | Coleman-type exclusion inapplicable: § 1170.95 hearings are not criminal trials, Fifth Amendment coercion not shown, and parole participation was voluntary, so no use immunity barred admission |
| Prejudice / Harmless-error | Independent record (preliminary hearing, investigative reports, plea with factual basis) supports finding Myles was actual killer; admission of parole materials not outcome-determinative | Without parole admissions it is reasonably probable the court would have granted relief because record did not preclude aider/abettor or natural-and-probable-consequences theories | Any error in admitting the parole materials was harmless; substantial circumstantial evidence and lack of a plausible target offense for N&P theory supported denial of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (statutory purpose of SB 1437 and § 1170.95)
- People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (limits on using postplea admissions in certain punishment-enhancement contexts)
- People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 (use-immunity rule for probation-revocation testimony)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (preservation and scope of appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (parties may offer new evidence at § 1170.95 proceedings)
- People v. Guerrero, 44 Cal.3d 343 (limits on relitigation of old convictions in strike-qualification contexts)