People v. HurtadoPeople v. Hurtado
- Reporters:
- , ,
We affirm the trial court on the doctrine of harmless error even though there is no error.
In February 2022, Hurtado filed a petition for resentencing under
FACTS
On March 16, 2015, Felipe Sandoval was driving his car. His passengers were Jose Medina Gamez (Gamez) and Francisco Sandoval (Francisco). Sandоval saw a white Impala automobile following them. Hurtado was in the passenger seat of that car. The white Impala moved to the side of Sandoval‘s vehicle. Sandoval made a right turn onto another street. He “got scared” “seeing” Hurtado, whom he had known for three years. (People v. Hurtado, supra, B271115.)
Sandoval drove to an intersection and stopped. The white Impala “got there and blocked [his] way.” (People v. Hurtado, supra, B271115.) Sandoval testified that Hurtado “pulled out” a “firearm,” pointed it at him, and “tried firing at [him].” (Ibid.) The gun “didn‘t fire.” (Ibid.) Hurtado pulled the trigger several times because the gun would not fire. He “racked the gun” by
Gamez testified Hurtado “tried killing [them]” with a “nine-millimeter” gun. (People v. Hurtado, supra, B271115.) Hurtado pointed the gun “at [them]” and was “racking the slide” of the gun because it “jammed.” (Ibid.) Francisco testified that a white Impala “cut [them] off.” (Ibid.) Hurtado pointed a black gun at them; the gun “jammed.” (Ibid.) He appeared “to be angry.” (Ibid.) Francisco was “scared for [his] life.” (Ibid.) Police Detective James Crilly testified that a semiautomatic handgun has “a magazine that you load the ammunition into and you put it intо the grip frame or the pistol grip. You have to cycle the slide to get a round into the chamber so it can be fired.” (Ibid.) If there is a malfunction, one could rack the slide to fix the problem or “to get another round into the chamber.” (Ibid.) A video surveillance camera from a liquor store at the date and time of the incident showed a car passing by matching the description of the white Impala. Police found a white Impala at Hurtado‘s residence.
Police Detective Edgar Fernandez testified that Hurtado‘s brother, Luis, was a suspect in a “Deсember 2014 serious and violent crime.” (People v. Hurtado, supra, B271115.) Sandoval witnessed the crime and had spoken with Fernandez “on several occasions.” (Ibid.) Police Officer Jaime Miranda testified that Sandoval wаs a friend of the victim in that case and that victim had died. Sandoval provided the police with information concerning the crime.
DISCUSSION
Noncompliance with the Statutory Resentencing Procedure
The statute allows defendants convicted of murder to file a resentencing petition by alleging they could not currently be convicted of murder because of the changes in the law required by Senate Bill No. 1437. (People v. Gutierrez-Salazar, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 417.) If the petitioner made a prima facie showing for relief, the trial cоurt was required to issue an order to show cause for an evidentiary hearing. (
In 2021, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 775 (2021 Reg. Sess.) amending
Here the trial court did not appoint counsel for Hurtado, set a briefing schedule, or hold a hearing before deciding Hurtado did not make a prima facie showing for resentencing. It did not comply with the statutory requirements.
Violation of Hurtado‘s Constitutional Rights
Hurtado contends by not following the statutory procedure the trial court violаted his constitutional rights.
In some contexts, a court‘s failure to comply with a statutory procedure will constitute a denial of due process. (People v. Slutts (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 886, 894.)
But a trial court‘s statutory omissions at the first step of the
Senate Bill No. 775 and the Lewis Harmless Error Rule
People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, was decided before the enactment of Senate Bill No. 775. Senate Bill Nо. 775 created a uniform procedure to be applied to all petitions for resentencing. When the Legislature creates a mandatory procedure for courts to fоllow, noncompliance may require reversal of judgments rendered without compliance with that procedure. (In re J.W. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 347, 356-357; In re Jasmine G., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115; People v. Slutts, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at p. 894.)
But in enacting Senate Bill No. 775, the Legislature knew that Lewis applied а harmless error standard in appropriate cases. The Legislature did not intend to replace the Lewis harmless error rule with an automatic reversal. Senate Bill No. 775 contains signifiсant references to Lewis. Legislators stated the bill “[a]ddresses what evidence a court may consider at a resentencing hearing (clarifying the discussion in People v. Lewis, supra, [11 Cal.5th] аt pp. 970-972).” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 1, subd. (d), italics added.) They indicated that Senate Bill No. 775 “[c]odifies the holdings of People v. Lewis” involving the right to counsel and ”the standard for determining the existence of a prima facie case.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 1, subd. (b), italics added.)
Senate Bill No. 775 reaffirmed Lewis with modifications, preserving Lewis‘s recognition of thе trial court‘s authority to promptly screen out petitions by categorically ineligible
Harmless Error
The trial cоurt found Hurtado‘s petition was not credible after reviewing the record of conviction. ” ‘[I]f the record . . . “contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the petition,” then “the court is justifiеd in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.” ’ ” (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court‘s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court tо distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Ibid.)
The record supports the trial court‘s decision to deny the petition because Hurtado was not eligible fоr relief. He alone attempted to commit murder. As the attempted murderer, he is “ineligible for relief” as “a matter of law,” and “there is no reasonable probability [Hurtado] would have obtained a more favorable result if counsel had been appointed and given the opportunity to file a memorandum supporting the petition“; consequently, the trial court‘s errors were “harmless.” (People v. Mancilla (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 854, 864.)
But here harmless error is a misnomer. The trial court committed no error. But in cases like this one, the harmless error doctrine provides a reasonable method to avoid protracted hearings in past cases that are final and should stay that way. This also frees overburdened courts to decide current cases. We hope the Legislature solves this anomaly.
The order is affirmed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J.