History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Pickett
93 Cal.App.5th 982
Cal. Ct. App.
2023
Read the full case

Background

  • In September 1979 Michael Moore was shot and later died from a gunshot wound to his right buttock; witnesses at a preliminary hearing saw Raymond Pickett confront Moore, draw a gun, fire a shot, and then shots were heard and Moore fell.
  • No evidence suggested another participant; witnesses overheard Pickett threaten to shoot anyone who “snitched.”
  • Pickett pleaded guilty to second degree murder in February 1980 and admitted a firearm enhancement; he was sentenced to 15 years to life plus two years.
  • In January 2022 Pickett filed a petition under Penal Code § 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95) asserting he could not now be convicted of murder under law changes from SB 1437; his form petition alleged no facts about the killing and did not deny being the shooter.
  • The prosecutor submitted the preliminary hearing transcript (and sentencing/probation records); Pickett was appointed counsel but counsel filed no reply or factual challenge to the prosecutor’s submission.
  • The trial court summarily denied the petition, concluding Pickett was the actual shooter and thus ineligible for § 1172.6 relief; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Did Pickett make a prima facie showing under § 1172.6? No — record shows Pickett was the actual killer, so ineligible. Yes — form petition was facially sufficient and SB 1437 may bar conviction now. Denied — Pickett failed to make a prima facie showing because uncontradicted record evidence shows he acted alone.
May the court rely on the preliminary hearing transcript when the conviction followed a plea? Yes — the transcript is part of the record of conviction and can inform the prima facie inquiry. No — some authorities suggest transcript should not be used unless stipulated as factual basis for the plea. Yes — the court may consider the preliminary hearing transcript as part of the record of conviction.
Is it proper to deny a § 1172.6 petition where counsel was appointed but filed no reply or factual challenge? Yes — if petitioner (with counsel) does not contest the record, summary denial is proper when record conclusively shows ineligibility. No — cases caution courts not to resolve disputed facts at prima facie stage and require briefing when petitioner contests the record. Yes — where the petitioner offers no dispute or evidence, the court may rely on uncontroverted record and deny the petition.
Does SB 1437 require an evidentiary hearing when the preliminary record shows multiple actors or is ambiguous? Not if the record conclusively shows the petitioner was the actual killer. If petitioner raises a plausible theory (e.g., accomplice did the shooting), an evidentiary hearing is required. If petitioner raises a reasonable dispute in briefing or evidence, the court cannot resolve it at prima facie stage; here no dispute was raised, so denial was proper.

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (explains SB 1437, standard for prima facie review, and use of record of conviction)
  • People v. Reed, 13 Cal.4th 217 (1996) (preliminary hearing transcript may be part of the record of conviction when it reliably reflects offense facts)
  • People v. Delgadillo, 14 Cal.5th 216 (2022) (a petitioner who was the actual killer is not entitled to relief under § 1172.6)
  • People v. Cooper, 54 Cal.App.5th 106 (2020) (trial court erred by denying § 1172.6 petition without appointing counsel and receiving briefing)
  • People v. Rivera, 62 Cal.App.5th 217 (2021) (if petitioner, with counsel, raises a theory that the preplea record does not definitively foreclose, court cannot summarily deny)
  • People v. Davenport, 71 Cal.App.5th 476 (2021) (discusses limits on relying on preliminary hearing transcript when plea lacks stipulation to that transcript)
  • People v. Flores, 76 Cal.App.5th 974 (2022) (preliminary hearing testimony may not establish ineligibility as a matter of law when it leaves open a theory covered by SB 1437)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Pickett
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Jul 24, 2023
Citation: 93 Cal.App.5th 982
Docket Number: B320892
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.