People v. Quiming CA6, H047387

Defendant Jesse Quiming was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter; trial court found a prior serious felony (§ 667(a)) and denied a Romero motion, resulting in a 56-years-to-life sentence.
California Supreme Court-directed remand (after SB 1393) required the trial court to reconsider whether to strike the prior serious felony and to consider Mental Health Diversion (§ 1001.36).
On remand, trial counsel submitted sentencing and § 1001.36 briefing asserting longstanding mental illness (bipolar/paranoid schizophrenia) and asked the court to strike the prior.
Before resentencing, defendant (with different counsel) filed a habeas petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective at trial for failing to investigate competency and a mental-health defense; exhibits included psychiatrist declarations and medical records.
At the § 1001.36 hearing and at resentencing the trial court stated it was aware of defendant’s mental-health history, found § 1001.36 inapplicable/unsuitable, and declined to strike the prior serious felony.
On appeal defendant argued trial counsel labored under an actual conflict (because of the pending habeas allegations) and therefore ineffective at resentencing for not presenting the habeas mental-health evidence; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding no prejudice shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Quiming)	Held
Forfeiture of ineffective-assistance claim	Defendant should have alerted trial court to conflict earlier; failure forfeits review	Appellate counsel did notify trial court post-resentencing; ineffective-assistance can be raised on appeal	No forfeiture: appellate counsel requested recall and appellate review allowed (citing Carrasco)
Ineffective assistance based on conflict of interest at resentencing	No actual conflict or prejudice; defendant cannot show result would differ	Trial counsel had an actual conflict (pending habeas alleging counsel’s trial errors) and thus failed to present additional mental-health evidence at resentencing, prejudicing outcome	Affirmed for lack of prejudice: record shows court was aware of mental-health evidence already; no reasonable probability result would differ (apply Doolin/Strickland standards)

People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (2009) (adopts federal standard for conflict-of-interest ineffective-assistance claims; requires actual conflict affecting performance and prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes ineffective-assistance prejudice standard: reasonable probability)
People v. Fairbank, 16 Cal.4th 1223 (1997) (no prejudice where defendant fails to show a "demonstrable reality" that additional evidence would have changed outcome)
People v. Carrasco, 59 Cal.4th 924 (2014) (ineffective-assistance claims may be raised on appeal; defendant not always required to present claim in trial court)
People v. Vera, 15 Cal.4th 269 (1997) (forfeiture principles where issues could have been corrected below)
People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (trial court’s discretion to strike or dismiss prior strike-term enhancement)