B325436
Cal. Ct. App.Apr 15, 2025Background
- Myron Payne pled guilty to first-degree murder in 1993 at age 19, after being involved in a fatal robbery at age 18.
- Payne was sentenced to 25 years to life plus three years for the use of a firearm.
- Following legal changes under Senate Bill No. 1437 (now Penal Code § 1172.6), Payne filed two petitions for resentencing, arguing his plea might be covered by felony-murder reforms.
- His first resentencing petition (2019) was summarily denied; the trial court found he was the actual killer, not convicted under a felony-murder or natural and probable consequences theory.
- Payne filed a second petition in 2020, referencing new legal authorities clarifying that those who pled guilty could still be eligible for relief.
- Payne also sought a Franklin hearing to preserve evidence for future youth offender parole consideration, but was denied due to procedural grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Payne's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Payne's second § 1172.6 petition barred as successive? | The second petition was based on new case law clarifying eligibility after pleas. | It was procedurally barred as already denied. | Petition should not be deemed successive; remanded for proper process. |
| Was Payne entitled to counsel and a prima facie review under § 1172.6? | He made a sufficient claim to require counsel and formal review. | No formal argument on this issue in record. | Yes, trial court must appoint counsel and perform prima facie review. |
| Was summary denial of Payne’s Franklin motion (youth parole evidence preservation) error? | The court never considered the actual merits under the correct procedure. | Conceded error. | Yes, must consider the Franklin motion on its merits. |
| Should the trial court's denials of both motions be reversed? | The process was legally inadequate, so reversal is required. | No objection stated. | Yes—reversed and remanded with instructions. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (holds youth offenders entitled to present mitigating evidence for parole hearings)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (mandates appointment of counsel and briefing for facially sufficient § 1172.6 petitions)
- In re Cook, 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cal. 2019) (procedure for seeking Franklin hearings post-conviction)
- People v. Patton, 17 Cal.5th 549 (Cal. 2025) (standards for sufficiency and counsel entitlement under § 1172.6)