People v. Tate CA5
F081403
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2021Background
- In 2003 Tate pled no contest to second‑degree murder of his infant stepson and admitted a prior strike; he was sentenced to 30 years to life.
- In 2019 Tate filed a section 1170.95 petition seeking resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (eliminating certain imputed‑malice murder theories).
- The People opposed, relying on the probation report to argue Tate was the actual killer and acted with implied malice.
- The trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, stating the record (probation report and plea/sentencing transcripts) established Tate was the actual killer.
- On appeal the People conceded the trial court engaged in improper factfinding at the prima facie stage; the Court of Appeal held the record did not conclusively establish ineligibility and reversed, directing issuance of an order to show cause and a section 1170.95 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by denying the section 1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause? | Trial court correctly found Tate was the actual killer with implied malice and thus ineligible. | Prima facie review forbids factfinding; the record does not conclusively show ineligibility. | Court erred; must issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing under §1170.95(d). |
| Do the charging documents and no‑contest plea conclusively show ineligibility as a matter of law? | Information and plea show elements of murder and suggest prosecution proceeded as actual killer, so petitioner is ineligible. | A plea admits elements but not the theory of murder; petitioner did not stipulate to a factual basis, so the record is not dispositive. | Charging papers and plea do not conclusively establish ineligibility. |
| May the trial court rely on the probation report to resolve the prima facie question? | Probation report supplies facts showing actual killer/implied malice. | Reliance on probation report at prima facie stage is impermissible factfinding where record is not dispositive. | Use of probation report for dispositive factfinding at prima facie stage was improper. |
| Was petitioner required to produce an offer of proof at the prima facie stage? | Absence of offer of proof supports denial. | Petitioner is not required to present additional evidence at prima facie; court must draw inferences in petitioner's favor. | Petitioner need not submit proof at prima facie; court should construe allegations favorably and only deny if record conclusively rebuts them. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (explaining amendments to murder law and the purpose of §1170.95)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (describing prima facie review limits and that trial courts should not engage in factfinding at that stage)
- People v. Rivera, 62 Cal.App.5th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (holding charging language does not preclude theories eliminated by SB 1437)
- People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (stating that weighing evidence is reserved for the evidentiary hearing, not the prima facie stage)
- People v. Saez, 237 Cal.App.4th 1177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (noting a guilty plea admits statutory elements but not the theory or factual mechanism of the offense)