People v. Santana CA3, C093432

In 2000 Alejandro Santana was convicted of first degree murder for shooting a car salesman during a test drive; jury found robbery and carjacking special circumstances true and returned firearm-use enhancement findings; sentenced to life without parole.
Santana’s convictions were previously affirmed on appeal. In October 2020 he filed a section 1170.95 petition, checked boxes asserting he was not the actual killer, and requested counsel.
The trial court appointed counsel but summarily denied the petition before obtaining briefing, relying in part on this court’s prior unpublished opinion stating Santana was the actual killer.
Santana appealed the summary denial, arguing denial without briefing violated his statutory right to counsel and that the court improperly relied on the prior opinion’s factual recital.
The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred under People v. Lewis by denying the petition without soliciting briefing from appointed counsel, but deemed the error harmless because the record of conviction (appellate opinion plus jury instructions and findings) established Santana was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief under section 1170.95.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated §1170.95 by summarily denying the petition without allowing briefing from appointed counsel	The court properly dismissed because the record shows Santana ineligible; summary denial justified	Denial deprived Santana of his statutory right to counsel and due process by denying briefing	Court erred under Lewis to deny before briefing but error harmless because record conclusively showed ineligibility
Whether the court could rely on this court’s prior appellate opinion and the record of conviction to find Santana ineligible as the actual killer	Appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction and may be considered at the prima facie stage; jury findings also establish actual killer status	Prior opinion’s factual recital could not be sole basis; reliance on it without counsel was improper	Appellate opinion may be considered; even if treated as inadmissible hearsay, jury instructions and special-circumstance and enhancement findings independently establish Santana was the actual killer, rendering him ineligible

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Supreme Court) (trial court must appoint counsel and allow briefing before prima facie determination under §1170.95)
People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (Supreme Court) (record of conviction may inform prima facie review)
People v. Guilford, 228 Cal.App.4th 651 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appellate opinion’s factual summary presumed faithful to the appellate record)
People v. Cornelius, 44 Cal.App.5th 54 (Cal. Ct. App.) (record showing defendant was actual killer precludes relief under §1170.95)
Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App.) (judgment upheld if correct on any applicable theory of law)