People v. Arellano

550 P.3d 1073

322 Cal.Rptr.3d 548

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Luis Ramon Manzano ARELLANO, Defendant and Appellant.

S277962

Supreme Court of California.

July 11, 2024

Sixth Appellate District, H049413, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 159386, Daniel T. Nishigaya, Judge

Peter F. Goldscheider, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Redwood City, for Defendant and Appellant.

Galit Lipa, State Public Defender, Adriana Gonzalez, Associate Deputy State Public Defender, AJ Kutchins and Jennifer Hansen, Deputy State Public Defenders, for the Office of the State Public Defender as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

William J. Arzbaecher for the California Public Defender’s Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A Swenson, Alan L. Amann, Arlene A. Sevidal, James H. Flaherty III and Christine Y. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Evans, J.

Penal Code section 1172.6¹ provides an opportunity for criminal defendants who were convicted of murder under either a natural and probable consequences theory or (in some circumstances) under a felony-murder theory — and who could not be convicted of murder under the law as it currently stands — to file a petition to be resentenced. A successful petitioner is entitled to have the murder "conviction, and any allegations and enhancements attached to the conviction" vacated and to be "resentenced on the remaining charges." (Id., subd. (d)(3).) But a successful petitioner who was charged with murder "generically, and the target offense was not charged" is entitled to have the murder conviction "redesignated" as "the target offense" of the natural and probable consequences theory — or the "underlying felony" of the felony murder — and to be resentenced accordingly. (Id., subd. (e).) The Attorney General asks us to hold that in resentencing a successful petitioner under the latter subdivision, a superior court has the "flexibility" to add to the redesignated conviction uncharged and unproven offense-specific sentencing enhancements or allegations it deems "appropriate."

[] We hold that the limited resentencing procedure under section 1172.6, subdivision (e) does not permit a court to impose a sentencing enhancement or allegation unless the enhancement or allegation was pled and either proven to the trier of fact or by the defendant’s admission in open court. (See § 1170.1, subd. (e).) We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the extent it ordered stricken a firearm use enhancement that was neither found true by the jury nor admitted by defendant.

I.Background

In January 1992, J. Sacramento Benitez was killed during a residential burglary and attempted robbery. The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant Luis Ramon Manzano Arellano and two codefendants, Arturo Mendoza and Jesus Antonio Mandujano, with Benitez’s murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211, 212.5, subd. (a)), and first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)). The murder and attempted robbery counts further alleged that each defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of those offenses. (§§ 1203.06, 12022.5, subd. (a).) Prior to the preliminary hearing, Arellano agreed to plead guilty to second degree murder under certain conditions, including that the firearm use enhancement would be stricken and the robbery and burglary charges dismissed. The court sentenced Arellano to 15 years to life, concurrent to a sentence previously imposed in a different ease, and dismissed the robbery and burglary counts as well as the firearm enhancement.²

In October 2020, Arellano, through counsel, filed the current petition for resentencing. The district attorney initially opposed the petition, arguing that Arellano’s "barebones declaration of eligibility is insufficient pleading for a prima facie case," but after the court issued an order to show cause, announced that "the People will be stipulating to a resentencing." In light of the district attorney’s concession, the court vacated Arellano’s murder conviction, stayed the execution of that vacatur pending resentencing, and set the matter for further proceedings to redesignate the charge or charges upon which Arellano would be resentenced.

At a hearing held on April 26, 2021, defense counsel agreed that Arellano "should be resentenced on the target offense" and offered no objection to the district attorney’s request that Arellano be resentenced on the originally charged attempted robbery and the firearm use enhancement attached to it. The trial court confirmed the parties’ agreement to resentence Arellano on the attempted robbery offense and the firearm enhancement and referred the matter to the probation department for a presentencing report. The court explained its understanding of the impending resentencing under then-current section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) as follows: "[T]his was a case in which Counts 2 [attempted robbery] and 3 [first degree burglary] did reflect what might be considered target offenses for the murder crime in Count No. 1. Those counts were submitted for dismissal. The defendant nev- er pled to nor admitted them. So this is not a situation where statutorily under [section] 1170.95 I’m sentencing on the, quote, remaining counts. [¶] What I will be doing is by the agreement of the parties redesignating Count No. 1 to the violations of [sections] 664/211/212.5 subdivision (a) with the enhancement under 12022.5 subdivision (a)."

The district attorney’s resentencing brief asserted that "[b]ased on information provided by witnesses, detectives were able to identify the suspects, along with a fourth participant who was killed shortly after the crime. Defendants Jesus Mandujano and Arturo Mendoza told police that Petitioner Arellano was present during the robbery/murder. [Arellano] told police he knew other individuals were planning to commit the robbery, but that he did not participate. [Arellano] provided several conflicting statements regarding his whereabouts at the time of the murder." In addition, the district attorney noted the defense’s agreement as to the "underlying felony committed by [Arellano]" (i.e., attempted robbery) and "that an arming enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.5 be imposed."

At this point in the proceedings, defense counsel objected to the inclusion of the firearm enhancement. Counsel argued that former section 1170.95, "[s]ubdivision (e) provides that Mr. Arellano’s conviction is to be redesignated as the target offense or underlying felony for resentencing purposes, but it says nothing about adding enhancements that were not previously admitted or found true by a trier of fact." Counsel further argued that including the firearm enhancement would violate Arellano’s constitutional rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435.

At the May 24, 2021, hearing on redesignation and resentencing, counsel reiterated her view the court lacked authority to impose the firearm enhancement and asserted "it isn’t clear in the evidence … as to whether or not Mr. Arellano possessed a firearm." The court disagreed, reasoning it had the authority to impose the previously dismissed enhancement and finding there was "evidence in the record" to "suggest" Arellano was armed: "[G]iven the fact that there were Penal Code Section 12022.5 subdivision (a) enhancements attached to … counts against Mr. Arellano in this case, given the fact that the Court is going to move forward and resentence him only on … what was previously Count 2 [attempted robbery], even though I think [People v. Watson (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 474, 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 37] would give the Court the ability to sentence him for the burglary as well, given the fact that this was a negotiated disposition in which the firearm enhancement was stricken as opposed to … a not true finding, and given what the Court does have available to it in the record of conviction regarding the circumstances of the underlying offenses, and it is unfortunate that the stipulation is no longer something the parties can agree upon, but I am going to move forward with resentencing on the attempted robbery charge with the arming allegation pursuant to [section] 12022.5 subdivision (a)."

The "evidence in the record that would suggest that [Arellano] did possess a handgun during the time of the underlying offenses" apparently consisted entirely of hearsay exhibits — including police reports recounting interviews of Arellano and his codefendants as well as a single page from a prison psychological evaluation quoting a correctional counselor’s report — Arellano had submitted in support of his resentencing petition. According to the police reports, Arellano made "several conflicting statements" during his police interview about his proximity to the residence at the time of the crime but maintained that he was not present for the attempted robbery. Codefendant Mendoza, on the other hand, told the police that he, Mandujano, and Arellano each had guns during the course of the robbery. Mandujano similarly told the police that he, Mendoza, and Arellano possessed guns during the incident. The correctional counselor’s report dated December 2002, more than 10 years after the murder, recounted what the murder victim’s sister had said about the incident: "According to the victim’s sister, four young males had come to her door looking for another address. About one hour later, they came back to her house and rang the door bell. When she opened the door, Jesus Antonio Mandujano and Ramon Arellano rushed past her. Arturo Mendoza came in next and held a gun to the left side of Benitez’s sister. Benitez, the victim, appeared from a rear bedroom, saw what was happening and...