Opinion
B308995
02-15-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON DANIELS, Defendant and Appellant.
Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BA347305, Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Reversed.
Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Peggy Z. Huang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHAVEZ, J.
We affirmed the denial of defendant and appellant Brandon Daniels's (defendant) petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code former section 1170.95 in People v. Daniels (Dec. 16, 2021, B308995) (nonpub. opn.). By order dated November 30, 2022, the California Supreme Court returned this case to this court with directions to vacate our previous decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong).
Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the section by its new numbering only. All further unattributed code sections are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
BACKGROUND
A jury convicted defendant in 2013 of first degree murder and found true the felony-murder special circumstance alleged pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). Defendant was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole, which we affirmed in People v. Daniels (Sept. 29, 2014, B249088) (nonpub. opn.).
In 2019, defendant filed a petition for vacatur and resentencing under section 1172.6. After appointing counsel for defendant and considering briefing and counsel's arguments, the trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage without an evidentiary hearing. In affirming the denial, we found the trial court could deny a section 1172.6 petition at the initial prima facie review on the ground that the murder conviction with a special circumstance finding pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17) made defendant ineligible as a matter of law for resentencing under section 1172.6. (See People v. Daniels, supra, B308995.) We further held that the jury's special circumstance finding could not be challenged in a section 1172.6 proceeding based upon factors clarified after his conviction in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark). We also conducted a substantial evidence review of the evidence relevant to Banks and Clark as summarized in our opinion affirming the judgment and concluded that any error in denying the petition was harmless.
We now reconsider that decision in light of Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th 698.
DISCUSSION
In Strong, our high court held that a true finding on a felonymurder special-circumstance allegation that predates Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th 788 and Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th 522 does not preclude section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 717-720.) Such a finding is premised on outdated legal standards, making Banks and Clark comparable to the kind of significant change in law traditionally found to warrant a reexamination of earlier litigated decisions, thus rendering the rule of collateral estoppel inapplicable. (Strong, supra, at pp. 719-720.)The court also held that an erroneously denied petition on that ground is not subject to a substantial evidence review for harmless error, as this would deny the defendant a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that the correct standards were met; and it would entail factfinding, which is prohibited at the prima facie stage. (Strong, at p. 720, citing People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972.)
The court made clear that while its decision did not foreclose reexamination of all special circumstance findings, it also did not mean that all such findings should be open to relitigation. (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 714.)
The parties have filed supplemental briefs addressing these issues, and the People acknowledge that their previous arguments in People v. Daniels, supra, B308995 were the same arguments presented to and rejected by the high court in Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th 698. We agree with the People who concede that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for issuance of an order to show cause and an evidentiary hearing. Then the petition must be granted unless the prosecution proves "beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as amended by the changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019." (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).) Upon reconsideration of the cause in light of Strong, we conclude that the superior court erred in denying defendant's petition. We therefore remand the matter for the issuance of an order to show cause and further proceedings in accordance with section 1172.6, subdivision (d).
DISPOSITION
The opinion and decision filed in this case on December 16, 2021, is vacated and the denial of the section 1172.6 petition is reversed. The matter is remanded for reappointment of counsel and further proceedings in accordance with section 1172.6, subdivision (d).
We concur: ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J., HOFFSTADT, J.