prima facie inquiry in California

2026Upon receipt of a petition that sets forth the required allegations, the trial court must conduct a prima facie analysis and hearing to determine the defendant's eligibility for relief. (§ 1172.6, subds. (b)(3) & (c); People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708 ; Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 957, 960.) If the defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, then the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if defendant is guilty of murder under sections 188 or 189 as amended by the changes to sections 188 or 189 made effective Janua

2026(See § 1172.6, subd. (c); [citation].)” (Strong, at p. 708.) If the petitioner states a prima facie case for relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and, in most cases, set an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the conviction, recall the sentence, and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c), (d)(1).) “In determining whether the petitioner has carried the burden of making the requisite prima facie showing he falls within the provisions of section 1172.6 and is entitled to relief, the superior court properly examines the record of conv

2026If so, the court must issue an order to show cause.” ’ ” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) “ ‘[I]f the record, including the court’s own documents, “contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the petition,” then “the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ” (Id. at p. 972.) The inquiry in this 10. stage is “ ‘limited,’ ” but it is n

2026(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ; see also People v. Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043 , 1055 [record of conviction includes jury instructions].) The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6, subdivision (c) is “limited.” (Lewis, at p. 971.) The court “ ‘ “takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘[A] court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing

2026(People v. Daniel (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 666 , 677 [because “no instructions were given on felony murder or murder under 10 the natural and probable consequences doctrine,” the petitioner was “ineligible for relief as a matter of law”]; see also People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719 , 731 [if a person has been convicted after a trial, “the jury instructions will be critical” to the prima facie inquiry]; People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 , 52 [“if the record shows that the jury was not instructed on either the natural and probable consequences or felony-murder doctrines, then the pet

2025However, the prima facie inquiry is limited; at this stage of the proceedings, the court “should not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ [Citation.]” (Lewis, at pp. 971-972.) “[U]nder the natural and probable consequences doctrine, ‘[a]n aider and abettor is guilty not only of the intended, or target, crime but also of any other crime a principal in the target crime actually commits (the nontarget crime) that is a natural and probable consequence of the target crime.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 901 .) “The nat

2026(Id. at p. 564.) Patton acknowledged that the Supreme Court previously “placed limits on the use of preliminary hearing transcripts to prove disputed facts, but [stated that] these limits are inapplicable here.” (Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 568.) The Supreme Court explained that, in Patton’s case, resolution of the prima facie inquiry “did not call for resolution of a 10 factual dispute” and “[r]ather than resolving a contested factual dispute, statements within [the] preliminary hearing transcript contributed specific factual assertions about [the petitioner’s] conviction — namely, that i

2026(Id. at p. 564.) Patton acknowledged that the Supreme Court previously “placed limits on the use of preliminary hearing transcripts to prove disputed facts, but [stated that] these limits are inapplicable here.” (Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 568.) The Supreme Court explained that, in Patton’s case, resolution of the prima facie inquiry “did not call for resolution of a 10 factual dispute” and “[r]ather than resolving a contested factual dispute, statements within [the] preliminary hearing transcript contributed specific factual assertions about [the petitioner’s] conviction — namely, that i

2025To establish a prima-facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, “the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” (Duren, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 364 ; Anderson, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 566 .) If the defendant establishes a prima facie case of s

2017Discussion A criminal defendant has a "right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the *19 community." ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 , 359, 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ( Duren ); see People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 1159, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which ju

2026If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c); see Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 .) The trial court’s prima facie inquiry determines whether the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law.

2026If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c); see Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 .) The trial court’s prima facie inquiry determines whether the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law.

2024(People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 , 970–971 (Lewis).) However, the prima facie inquiry is limited and, at this stage of the proceedings, the court “should not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ” (Lewis, at p. 972.) If the trial court determines the petitioner has met his or her prima facie burden, “the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and to resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts.” (Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 853 ; accord, § 1172.6,

2024(Lewis, at pp. 971-972.) However, Lewis cautions that although appellate opinions are generally considered to be part of the record of conviction, the prima facie bar was intentionally set very low; a trial court should not engage in “ ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ” (Id. at p. 972.) If appointment of counsel is improperly denied, we apply the harmless error test of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .

2025(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ; see People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 , 463–464.) The court may consider the record of conviction, which will “necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Lewis, at p. 971; see Curiel, at pp. 463–464; People v. Williams (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1244 , 1251.) “In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evi

2025(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ; see People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 , 463–464.) The court may consider the record of conviction, which will “necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Lewis, at p. 971; see Curiel, at pp. 463–464; People v. Williams (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1244 , 1251.) “In reviewing any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court 8 should not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of e

2024As relevant here, Nguyen was required to show (1) that the information allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person 7 based solely on that person’s participation in a crime; (2) that he was convicted of murder following a trial; and (3) that he could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019. (§ 1172.6, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2), & (a)(3).) In making the prima facie determ

2023DISCUSSION A. Section 1172.6 Section 1172.6 “creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief.” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 957 ; People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 , 973 (Drayton), abrogated by Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 963 .) “If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) “While the trial court may look at the record of conviction after the appointment of counsel to determine whether a pe

2026(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 , 309-310.) “However, if the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition. [Citations.] The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) Consequently, section 388 petitions with general, conclusory

2026(In re Samuel A. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1 , 7 (Samuel A.); In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-189 (Justice P.); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d).) “If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not show changed circumstances such that the child’s best interests will be promoted by the proposed change of order, the dependency court need not order a hearing.” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 (Anthony W.); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d)(1), (2).) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given cred

2026(People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 , 971-972.) But, in assessing whether a defendant has made a prima 9 facie showing for relief under section 1172.6, the trial court is entitled to review the record of conviction, which will “necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Lewis, at pp. 971-972; see People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 , 463-464; People v. Williams, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 1251.) The trial court properly determined defendant did

2026(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ; see People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 , 463–464 (Curiel).) The court may consider the record of conviction, which will “necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Lewis, at pp. 971–972; see Curiel, at pp. 463–464; People 7 v. Williams (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1244 , 1251.) The jury instructions and verdicts are part of the record of conviction.

2026(See People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706 , 714 [failure to object to the trial court’s reliance on allegedly inadmissible evidence at a section 1172.6 hearing forfeits the issue on appeal].) At the prima facie hearing, he instead argued that the court could not consider the facts from the preliminary hearing “in this situation” where the parties stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as a factual basis for the plea. {RT 203-204} Defendant cited Davenport, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th 476 , which held that “[t]he trial court engaged in ‘impermissible factfinding’ at the prima facie sta

2026(See People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706 , 714 [failure to object to the trial court’s reliance on allegedly inadmissible evidence at a section 1172.6 hearing forfeits the issue on appeal].) At the prima facie hearing, he instead argued that the court could not consider the facts from the preliminary hearing “in this situation” where the parties stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as a factual basis for the plea. {RT 203-204} Defendant cited Davenport, supra, 71 Cal.App.5th 476 , which held that “[t]he trial court engaged in ‘impermissible factfinding’ at the prima facie sta

2026This argument is based on Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12 (Finley), a case in which the defendant filed a motion under the Racial Justice Act and the trial court denied the motion for failure to state a prima facie violation of the Racial Justice Act.

2025There is a significant gap between a “prima facie showing” and “proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” “‘Prima facie showing’ means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of subdivision (a) occurred. . . . [A] ‘substantial likelihood’ requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.” (Id., subd. (h)(2).) “The defining feature of the prima facie standard is that it creates an initial burden on a moving party to proffer evidence that would support a favorable ruling without a c

2017Discussion A criminal defendant has a "right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the *19 community." ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 , 359, 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ( Duren ); see People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 1159, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which ju

2017Discussion A criminal defendant has a "right, under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the *19 community." ( Duren v. Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 , 359, 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 ( Duren ); see People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 1159, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which ju

2024(People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320 , 329-330, overruled on other grounds by Lewis, at pp. 962-963; see People v. Abarca (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1347, 1350 .) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court's prima facie inquiry under [former] section 1170.95, allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at 12 p. 971.) At the prima facie hearing, the defendant must show “he did not, in fact, act or harbor the mental state required” for a conviction under current law.

2024(People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1 , 13; People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320 , 329-330, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493, overruled on other grounds in Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 961-962.) As our Supreme Court explained, “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry . . . allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (Lewis, at p. 971.) Here, the information against defendant charged him with attempted murder in generic terms, according to the statutory definition of the

2013Step one requires the defendant to make a prima facie “ ‘showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ ” (Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 , quoting Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 93-94.) This prima facie requirement is satisfied “so long as the sum of the proffered facts gives ‘rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ ” ( Johnson, supra, at p. 169 , quoting Batson, supra, at p. 94 .) If the trial court determines the defendant has made a prima facie showing, “the ‘burden shifts to the State to explain adequately th

2011In this first stage of any Wheeler/Batson inquiry, the defendant must show that “ ‘the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’ ” (Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 [ 162 L.Ed.2d 129 , 125 S.Ct. 2410 ], quoting Batson, supra, 476 U.S. 79, 96 ; accord, Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 280-281 .) To clarify, this is not a case in which, after a prima facie violation is found, the prosecution must offer permissible nondiscriminatory reasons for the strikes (i.e., the second stage of a Wheeler/Batson challenge).

2025(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 986, citing Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 846 ; see § 188, subd. (a)(3).) At the prima facie hearing of March 13, 2024, the trial court acknowledged defendant’s jury had been instructed regarding the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

2025(People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 986, citing Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 846 ; see § 188, subd. (a)(3).) At the prima facie hearing of March 13, 2024, the trial court acknowledged defendant’s jury had been instructed regarding the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

2026On remand, the trial court must conduct further proceedings as are necessary to allow the City to lay the proper foundation for the assertion of the privilege, and for the People and/or Philips to demonstrate that the privilege does not apply or that a statutory exception exists. 9 Costco instructs that the party claiming the attorney-client privilege “has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. [Citation.] Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie

2025Such a broad reading of Qaadir cannot be squared with established California Supreme Court precedent, which states “[t]he [attorney-client] privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 739 (Costco).) Rather, “the attorney-client privilege is a legislative creation, which courts have no power to limit by recognizing implied exceptions.” (Ibid.) Thus, it appears petitioner has stated a prima facie claim of privilege, and real p

2025The court held the prima facie hearing for that petition on September 23, where the People reiterated their argument from the first hearing but informed the court that the California Supreme Court had granted review in Patton I, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th 649 , review granted.

2025The court held the prima facie hearing for that petition on September 23, where the People reiterated their argument from the first hearing but informed the court that the California Supreme Court had granted review in Patton I, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th 649 , review granted.

2025Prima Facie Stage and Standard of Review At the prima facie stage, “ ‘ “the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) 5 “While the trial court may look at the record of conviction . . . to determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case for section [1172.6] relief, the prima facie inquiry under subdivision (c) is limited.” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) Courts may not engage in “

2024Prima Facie Stage and Standard of Review At the prima facie stage, “ ‘ “the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 .) “While the trial court may look at the record of conviction . . . to determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case for section [1172.6] relief, the prima facie inquiry under subdivision (c) is limited.” (Ibid.) Courts may not engage in “ ‘factfinding involving the weighi

2026(In re Samuel A. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1 , 7 (Samuel A.); In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-189 (Justice P.); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d).) “If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not show changed circumstances such that the child’s best interests will be promoted by the proposed change of order, the dependency court need not order a hearing.” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 (Anthony W.); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d)(1), (2).) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given cred

2026(In re Samuel A. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1 , 7 (Samuel A.); In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-189 (Justice P.); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d).) “If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not show changed circumstances such that the child’s best interests will be promoted by the proposed change of order, the dependency court need not order a hearing.” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 (Anthony W.); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d)(1), (2).) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given cred

2024(See In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584 , 592–593.) “The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) The juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case in deciding whether to grant a hearing on a petition under section 388.

2016(In re Jamika W. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1446 , 1450–1451; In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 592-594 .)The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.(Id. at p. 594.) A ruling on a section 388 petition is “committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuseofdiscretion is clearly established.” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 .) “Thus, we may not reverse unless the juv

2026(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 , 309-310.) “However, if the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition. [Citations.] The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) Consequently, section 388 petitions with general, conclusory

2025(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295 , 309–310.) “However, if the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition. [Citations.] The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 .) In determining whether the petition makes the necessary show

2026(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ; see also People v. Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043 , 1055 [record of conviction includes jury instructions].) The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6, subdivision (c) is “limited.” (Lewis, at p. 971.) The court “ ‘ “takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘[A] court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing

2025(People v. Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043 , 1055.) “It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law that the court may deny the petition without a hearing.” (People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566 , 576.) If the court denies the petition without issuing an order to show cause, it must state its reasons. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) Here, at the prima facie hearing, the trial court reviewed the record of conviction, and more specifically, the jury instructions.