People v. Rivera
62 Cal.App.5th 217
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- In 2012 Rivera was indicted for murder (with gang and lying-in-wait special‑circumstances); only his co‑defendant was alleged to have been the actual shooter.
- In 2017 Rivera pleaded no contest to second‑degree murder, admitted the gang allegation and a prior strike; defense counsel stipulated to the grand‑jury transcript as the factual basis for the plea.
- Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability and created Penal Code § 1170.95 allowing eligible prisoners to seek vacatur and resentencing.
- Rivera filed a § 1170.95 petition claiming he pleaded to avoid trial though he could only have been guilty under now‑invalid theories (felony murder / natural and probable consequences); the trial court denied the petition, finding his plea admitted malice and refusing to rely on the grand jury transcript.
- On appeal the court held a plea to murder “with malice aforethought” does not categorically bar a § 1170.95 prima facie showing because such a plea is not necessarily an admission of actual (express) malice.
- The Court reversed and remanded: Rivera made a sufficient prima facie showing and is entitled to an order to show cause and further proceedings under § 1170.95(d); the grand jury transcript could not be used at the prima facie stage here to deny relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People/AG) | Defendant's Argument (Rivera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a no‑contest plea to murder "with malice aforethought" bars § 1170.95 relief as a matter of law | Plea admitted malice; conviction therefore not eligible for relief because it reflects a malice‑based murder, not felony‑murder or NPC theory | A generic plea to murder does not necessarily admit express or implied malice; the plea may have been entered to avoid trial though liability depended on now‑invalid theories | A plea to murder with malice does not categorically preclude a prima facie showing under § 1170.95; plea alone does not prove actual malice for this purpose |
| Whether stipulating to the grand jury transcript as the factual basis for the plea constitutes an admission of facts (including malice) that defeats § 1170.95 relief | The stipulation binds defendant to grand‑jury evidence; that transcript shows malice and no basis for felony‑murder or NPC theories | A stipulation to a document as the factual basis is not a personal admission of the truth of all underlying grand‑jury evidence; it does not foreclose contesting the theories at the prima facie stage | Stipulation to a document does not automatically equal admission of all underlying grand‑jury facts; the transcript could not be used to prove malice admission here |
| Whether a generic murder indictment forestalls relief because it showed the prosecution did not rely on felony‑murder/NPC theories | Indictment language alleging malice and the special circumstance show prosecution pursued malice‑based murder; absent pre‑trial evidence of underlying felony/target offense, petitioner cannot show he could only have been convicted under now‑invalid theories | Generic murder pleadings permit the prosecution to proceed on felony‑murder or NPC; the absence of explicit underlying‑felony allegations does not prove those theories were unavailable | A generic indictment does allow prosecution under multiple theories; absence of an explicit underlying‑felony in the record does not, by itself, defeat a prima facie showing |
| Whether a trial court may consult the grand jury transcript at the § 1170.95 prima facie stage to deny the petition | Court can consult pre‑plea transcripts to see if record conclusively shows petitioner was convicted under a still‑valid theory | If the transcript does not conclusively refute the petitioner’s claim, weighing evidence is improper at prima facie stage | Court may consult records, but should not resolve disputed factual issues at the prima facie stage; here the transcript did not conclusively bar relief and was properly not relied upon |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (explaining SB 1437 preserved implied‑malice murder but abolished NPC vicarious liability)
- People v. Gonzalez, 54 Cal.4th 643 (defining express and implied malice)
- People v. Nakahara, 30 Cal.4th 705 (murder pleading need not specify degree or theory)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (prima facie stage: court should not resolve disputed factual issues requiring credibility or weighing)
- People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798 (adopting Drayton standard for prima facie review)
- People v. Nguyen, 53 Cal.App.5th 1154 (contrasting view — plea/record may conclusively show petitioner convicted on still‑valid theory; court disagreed with its application here)