Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
30 California opinions name it 2 courts 2022–2026 30 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Schellgreen2 sentences2026(See People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44-45 [“A petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial”]; People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437 , 444 [“section 1172 .6 is an act of lenity in which the petitioner has no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial”]; People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505 , 531 & fn. 10 [the right to confront adverse witnesses under the 6th Amendment does not apply at an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6].) In Ramos, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at page 180, a different panel of t 2024(People v. Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920 , 931 [no right to jury or protection against double jeopardy]; People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 589 [same]; Hernandez, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 111 [double jeopardy concerns not implicated]; James, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [no right to jury].) Indeed, “[a] 15 petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial.” (Njoku, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at pp. 44-45; Duran, at p. 931 [“the panoply of rights that attach at trial do not apply during a section 1172.6 ev | 6 | 7 |
People v. Njokugreen2 sentences2026(See People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44-45 [“A petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial”]; People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437 , 444 [“section 1172 .6 is an act of lenity in which the petitioner has no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial”]; People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505 , 531 & fn. 10 [the right to confront adverse witnesses under the 6th Amendment does not apply at an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6].) In Ramos, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at page 180, a different panel of t 2024(See 15 People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 , 947 [a resentencing hearing does not afford the petitioner “a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error”]; Cody, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 104 [noting the Legislature plainly did not intend for resentencing hearings to become new court trials]; see also People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44–45 [a “petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial”]; People v. Howard (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 727 , 740 [retroactive relief afforded by former section 1170.95 “ | 6 | 7 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2025(People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 588; see Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 974 [“prima facie stage under [section 1172.6,] subdivision (c) is not similarly adversarial” to trial].) Our Supreme Court has held that petitioners in section 1172.6 proceedings have only a statutory right to counsel at the prima facie inquiry stage (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 973 ; see § 1172.6, subd. (b)(3)) and that there is no constitutional right to counsel on appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition. 2025(People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 588; see Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 974 [“prima facie stage under [section 1172.6,] subdivision (c) is not similarly adversarial” to trial].) Our Supreme Court has held that petitioners in section 1172.6 proceedings have only a statutory right to counsel at the prima facie inquiry stage (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 973 ; see § 1172.6, subd. (b)(3)) and that there is no constitutional right to counsel on appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition. | 5 | 7 |
People v. Arellanogreen2 sentences2026To the contrary: when a trial court resentences a petitioner under section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), the court must vacate ‘any allegations and 5 enhancements attached to the conviction.’ The court shall then resentence the petitioner on the ‘remaining charges’ (ibid.), which is a clear reference only to the charges that remain—not charges that could have been established by the evidence.” (Arellano, at p. 470.) Arellano also addressed section 1172.6, subdivision (e), which “applies when the murder was charged ‘generically,’ and the underlying felony or target offense was not charged.” (Arel 2026He asserts his position is consistent with People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 (Arellano), in which 2 the California Supreme Court held that trial courts “may not impose uncharged and unproven sentence allegations or enhancements when resentencing a successful petitioner under section 1172.6, subdivision (e).” (Arellano, at p. 477.) The Attorney General argues the court properly imposed an enhancement based on an allegation that was previously charged and admitted in connection with defendant’s vacated attempted murder conviction. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2025Unlike in a retrial after a defendant’s conviction has been overturned on appeal, a petitioner under section 1172.6 “was properly convicted of . . . murder [or attempted murder] under the law that was in effect at the time of his offense.” (People v. James, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 609.) A defendant in Limon’s position is not similarly situated to a defendant who has not been convicted, and it does not violate Limon’s right to equal protection to deny him a new jury trial. 2024(People v. Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920 , 931 [no right to jury or protection against double jeopardy]; People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 589 [same]; Hernandez, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 111 [double jeopardy concerns not implicated]; James, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [no right to jury].) Indeed, “[a] 15 petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial.” (Njoku, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at pp. 44-45; Duran, at p. 931 [“the panoply of rights that attach at trial do not apply during a section 1172.6 ev | 2 | 5 |
People v. Domenzaingreen2 sentences2024(People v. Domenzain (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 619, 621 [“the language, history, and context of section 1382 preclude its application to sentencing or resentencing delay”].) Moreover, “courts have uniformly held the sentence modification procedure under section 1172.6 to constitute an act of legislative lenity, not a new criminal prosecution. [Citations.] [¶] Resentencing under section 1172.6 is a completely voluntary process initiated by the petitioner, which cannot result in additional punishment. [Citation.] It therefore does not implicate double jeopardy concerns, and there is no Sixth Amendme 2024(People v. Domenzain (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 619, 621 [“the language, history, and context of section 1382 preclude its application to sentencing or resentencing delay”].) “[C]ourts have uniformly held the sentence modification procedure under section 1172.6 to constitute an act of legislative lenity, not a new criminal prosecution. [Citations.] [¶] Resentencing under section 1172.6 is a completely voluntary process initiated by the petitioner, which cannot result in additional punishment. [Citation.] It therefore does not implicate double jeopardy concerns, and there is no Sixth Amendment right | 2 | 2 |
People v. Anthonygreen2 sentences2023(See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973 [a petitioner under § 1172.6 is not constitutionally entitled to counsel in the proceeding, but rather, possesses “a purely statutory right to counsel that attaches before the issuance of an order to show cause”]; People v. James (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 604 , 610 [“a convicted person litigating a section [1172.6] petition does not enjoy the rights that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants who have not yet suffered a final conviction,” including the right to a trial by jury]; People v. Hernandez (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 94 , 111 [“The 2023(See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973 [a petitioner under § 1172.6 is not constitutionally entitled to counsel in the proceeding, but rather, possesses “a purely statutory right to counsel that attaches before the issuance of an order to show cause”]; People v. James (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 604 , 610 [“a convicted person litigating a section [1172.6] petition does not enjoy the rights that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants who have not yet suffered a final conviction,” including the right to a trial by jury]; People v. Hernandez (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 94 , 111 [“The | 2 | 2 |
People v. Silvagreen2 sentences2026(See People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44-45 [“A petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial”]; People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437 , 444 [“section 1172 .6 is an act of lenity in which the petitioner has no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial”]; People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505 , 531 & fn. 10 [the right to confront adverse witnesses under the 6th Amendment does not apply at an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6].) In Ramos, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at page 180, a different panel of t 2024(See People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437 , 444 [“section 1172.6 is an act of lenity in which the petitioner has no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial”]; People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505 , 531 & fn. 10 [right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment did not apply to the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.6, subdivision (e)]; see also People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44-45 [“A petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial.”]; People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 589 [s | 1 | 7 |
People v. Hillgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Domenzain (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 619, 621 [“the language, history, and context of section 1382 preclude its application to sentencing or resentencing delay”].) Moreover, “courts have uniformly held the sentence modification procedure under section 1172.6 to constitute an act of legislative lenity, not a new criminal prosecution. [Citations.] [¶] Resentencing under section 1172.6 is a completely voluntary process initiated by the petitioner, which cannot result in additional punishment. [Citation.] It therefore does not implicate double jeopardy concerns, and there is no Sixth Amendme 2024(People v. Domenzain (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 619, 621 [“the language, history, and context of section 1382 preclude its application to sentencing or resentencing delay”].) “[C]ourts have uniformly held the sentence modification procedure under section 1172.6 to constitute an act of legislative lenity, not a new criminal prosecution. [Citations.] [¶] Resentencing under section 1172.6 is a completely voluntary process initiated by the petitioner, which cannot result in additional punishment. [Citation.] It therefore does not implicate double jeopardy concerns, and there is no Sixth Amendment right | 1 | 3 |
People v. Durangreen2 sentences2024(People v. Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920 , 931 [no right to jury or protection against double jeopardy]; People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 589 [same]; Hernandez, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 111 [double jeopardy concerns not implicated]; James, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [no right to jury].) Indeed, “[a] 15 petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial.” (Njoku, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at pp. 44-45; Duran, at p. 931 [“the panoply of rights that attach at trial do not apply during a section 1172.6 ev 2023While the “Sixth Amendment applies ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions,’ . . . [a] petition under section 117[2.6] is not a criminal prosecution.” (People v. Silva (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 505 , 520.) Thus, appellate courts consistently have held that the “ ‘retroactive relief provided by section 117[2.6] reflects an act of lenity by the Legislature “that does not implicate defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights.” ’ ” (Ibid.; accord, People v. Schell (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 437 , 444 [“Courts have unanimously held that section 1172.6 is an act of lenity in which the petitioner has no Sixth Amendment right | 1 | 2 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences2023But contrary to Mendez’s contention that the section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing “is analogous . . . to a bench retrial,” we agree with those Courts of Appeal that have observed “‘a sentence modification under [section 1172.6] is an act of lenity and not a criminal trial.’” (Anderson, supra, 22 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 90.) A petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial. 2023(See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973 [a petitioner under § 1172.6 is not constitutionally entitled to counsel in the proceeding, but rather, possesses “a purely statutory right to counsel that attaches before the issuance of an order to show cause”]; People v. James (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 604 , 610 [“a convicted person litigating a section [1172.6] petition does not enjoy the rights that the Sixth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants who have not yet suffered a final conviction,” including the right to a trial by jury]; People v. Hernandez (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 94 , 111 [“The | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hartgreen2 sentences2026As Hart correctly reasons, “At an evidentiary hearing in a section 1172.6 proceeding, the question before the court is the same as it would be at a retrial for the murder: whether the petitioner is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law.” (Hart, supra, 113 Cal.App.5th at p. 1111.) 25 We are additionally persuaded by Hart’s observation that, were we to conclude Santamaria, which unquestionably applies to criminal trials, does not also apply to section 1172.6 proceedings, we would be “afford[ing] section 1172.6 petitioners greater protection against a redetermination of fac 2026As Hart correctly reasons, “At an evidentiary hearing in a section 1172.6 proceeding, the question before the court is the same as it would be at a retrial for the murder: whether the petitioner is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law.” (Hart, supra, 113 Cal.App.5th at p. 1111.) 25 We are additionally persuaded by Hart’s observation that, were we to conclude Santamaria, which unquestionably applies to criminal trials, does not also apply to section 1172.6 proceedings, we would be “afford[ing] section 1172.6 petitioners greater protection against a redetermination of fac | 1 | 1 |
People v. Delgadillogreen1 sentence2025(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 222, 226-227 .) Moreover, our Supreme Court concluded, in Lewis, that when a petitioner is denied the assistance of counsel at the prima facie review stage, that deprivation is a state law violation only—not a structural or constitutional error—that is reviewed for harmless error under the test in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . | 1 | 1 |
In re Friendgreen1 sentence2024(See In re Friend (2021) 11 Cal.5th 720, 743 [“Under Clark and Reno, counsel has the duty, in the initial [habeas] petition, of investigating and presenting all claims that could be discovered and presented at that time through due diligence.”].) Applying the Clark and Reno standard for habeas counsel here is all the more appropriate because a petitioner under section 1172.6 has a statutory right to counsel once the petitioner files a facially sufficient petition (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(3); Lewis, at p. 973), whereas the noncapital habeas petitioner does not even have that right. | 1 | 1 |
McGinnis v. Superior Court of Alameda Countygreen1 sentence2024(McGinnis v. Superior Court (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1240, 1243, fn. 2 .) Under this standard, counsel for Whitsey, at a minimum, should have objected when the superior court summarily denied Whitsey’s petition without having reviewed the briefs or the record of conviction, tasks critical to a proper assessment of the petition at the prima facie stage and to deciding whether to issue an order to show cause. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c); see People v. Curiel, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 450 [“‘If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the [superi | 1 | 1 |
People v. Codygreen2 sentences2024(See 15 People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 , 947 [a resentencing hearing does not afford the petitioner “a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error”]; Cody, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 104 [noting the Legislature plainly did not intend for resentencing hearings to become new court trials]; see also People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44–45 [a “petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial”]; People v. Howard (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 727 , 740 [retroactive relief afforded by former section 1170.95 “ 2024(See 15 People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 , 947 [a resentencing hearing does not afford the petitioner “a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error”]; Cody, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 104 [noting the Legislature plainly did not intend for resentencing hearings to become new court trials]; see also People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44–45 [a “petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial”]; People v. Howard (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 727 , 740 [retroactive relief afforded by former section 1170.95 “ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reyesgreen1 sentence2024(People v. Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920 , 931 [no right to jury or protection against double jeopardy]; People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 589 [same]; Hernandez, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 111 [double jeopardy concerns not implicated]; James, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [no right to jury].) Indeed, “[a] 15 petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial.” (Njoku, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at pp. 44-45; Duran, at p. 931 [“the panoply of rights that attach at trial do not apply during a section 1172.6 ev | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mylesgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920 , 931 [no right to jury or protection against double jeopardy]; People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 589 [same]; Hernandez, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 111 [double jeopardy concerns not implicated]; James, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [no right to jury].) Indeed, “[a] 15 petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial.” (Njoku, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at pp. 44-45; Duran, at p. 931 [“the panoply of rights that attach at trial do not apply during a section 1172.6 ev 2024(People v. Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920 , 931 [no right to jury or protection against double jeopardy]; People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575 , 589 [same]; Hernandez, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 111 [double jeopardy concerns not implicated]; James, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [no right to jury].) Indeed, “[a] 15 petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial.” (Njoku, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at pp. 44-45; Duran, at p. 931 [“the panoply of rights that attach at trial do not apply during a section 1172.6 ev | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lamoureuxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tran
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1206-1207.) The parties disagree, however, as to whether the trial court’s resentencing of petitioner pursuant to section 1172.6 rendered his once-final judgment nonfinal for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative changes in law, such as Assembly Bill No. 333. 6. 2024(People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1206–1207.) The parties disagree, however, as to whether the trial court’s resentencing of petitioner pursuant to section 1172.6 rendered his once-final judgment nonfinal for purposes of retroactive application of ameliorative changes in law, such as Assembly Bill No. 333.3 3 The People argue petitioner’s claim regarding the retroactive application of Assembly Bill No. 333 is forfeited. | 3 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Howard
green
2 sentences2026In support of that argument, the Attorney General points to language from Arellano as well as People v. Howard (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 727 (Howard)—a pre- Arellano case affirming the reimposition of an arming enhancement after a murder conviction was vacated under section 1172.6 and redesignated as the underlying burglary offense. 2024(See 15 People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 , 947 [a resentencing hearing does not afford the petitioner “a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error”]; Cody, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 104 [noting the Legislature plainly did not intend for resentencing hearings to become new court trials]; see also People v. Njoku (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 27 , 44–45 [a “petitioner under section 1172.6 does not possess many of the constitutional rights afforded to a criminal defendant at trial”]; People v. Howard (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 727 , 740 [retroactive relief afforded by former section 1170.95 “ | 2 | 2024–2026 |
People v. Curiel
green
2 sentences2025However, as we explain, we agree with the People that the jury verdict, when viewed alongside the instructions, establishes that the jury found petitioner guilty as an aider and abettor who acted with malice aforethought, whether express or implied.6 This finding is binding on petitioner in the section 1172.6 petition process ( Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 452-453), and renders him incapable of establishing that he “could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to [s]ection 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3)). 2024In two cases where the petitioner was convicted of murder as an accomplice to the killer, the Supreme Court established that jury findings are binding on a section 1172.6 petitioner under the doctrine of issue preclusion, and they may be sufficient to conclude a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. ( Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th 698 ; People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 (Curiel).) Those jury findings do this only if they preclude the petitioner from showing that he was convicted on a theory that Senate Bill 1437 abrogated. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Padilla
green
2 sentences2024A. People v. Padilla We begin our analysis with People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152 (Padilla), a case on which both parties rely. 2024A. People v. Padilla We begin our analysis with People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152 (Padilla), a case on which both parties rely. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Strong
green
2 sentences2024In two cases where the petitioner was convicted of murder as an accomplice to the killer, the Supreme Court established that jury findings are binding on a section 1172.6 petitioner under the doctrine of issue preclusion, and they may be sufficient to conclude a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. ( Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th 698 ; People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 (Curiel).) Those jury findings do this only if they preclude the petitioner from showing that he was convicted on a theory that Senate Bill 1437 abrogated. 2024In two cases where the petitioner was convicted of murder as an accomplice to the killer, the Supreme Court established that jury findings are binding on a section 1172.6 petitioner under the doctrine of issue preclusion, and they may be sufficient to conclude a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. ( Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th 698 ; People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433 (Curiel).) Those jury findings do this only if they preclude the petitioner from showing that he was convicted on a theory that Senate Bill 1437 abrogated. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
People v. Lara
green
2 sentences2026(Arellano, at p. 474.) 5 Silva further held that due process requires that a defendant be notified “reasonably in advance of the court resentencing him, which crimes the prosecution sought to have redesignated as underlying felonies, the length of sentence the prosecution proposed, and how that recommended sentence was calculated.” (Silva, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 523.) 9 Arellano reasoned that “even assuming [trial] courts must have ‘flexibility’ [citations] and ‘discretion’ ” in resentencing under section 1172.6, subdivision (e), “it does not follow that courts have the separate authority 2026(Arellano, at p. 474.) 5 Silva further held that due process requires that a defendant be notified “reasonably in advance of the court resentencing him, which crimes the prosecution sought to have redesignated as underlying felonies, the length of sentence the prosecution proposed, and how that recommended sentence was calculated.” (Silva, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 523.) 9 Arellano reasoned that “even assuming [trial] courts must have ‘flexibility’ [citations] and ‘discretion’ ” in resentencing under section 1172.6, subdivision (e), “it does not follow that courts have the separate authority | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Harden
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45 , 52.) Since the decision to appoint counsel is not discretionary, we review that without deference as well. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 222, 226-227 .) Moreover, our Supreme Court concluded, in Lewis, that when a petitioner is denied the assistance of counsel at the prima facie review stage, that deprivation is a state law violation only—not a structural or constitutional error—that is reviewed for harmless error under the test in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lezama
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Lezama (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 583 , 585-586.) Because defendant entered into his plea agreement in September 2024, he already benefitted from the protections of section 1172.6 and is not eligible for resentencing now. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Clark
yellow
1 sentence2024Because the prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6 is “analogous” (People v. Curiel, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 460 ; Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ) to the prima facie inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings, it is appropriate to adopt the rule the Supreme Court has applied in the habeas context: Counsel in habeas proceedings must perform “‘properly and competently’” (Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 463 ) and present “all potentially meritorious claims” (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 780 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Reno
yellow
1 sentence2024Because the prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6 is “analogous” (People v. Curiel, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 460 ; Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971 ) to the prima facie inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings, it is appropriate to adopt the rule the Supreme Court has applied in the habeas context: Counsel in habeas proceedings must perform “‘properly and competently’” (Reno, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 463 ) and present “all potentially meritorious claims” (In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 780 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Del Rio
green
1 sentence2024(See People v. Fouse (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1131 , 1145-1146 (Fouse); People v. Del Rio (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 47 , 53.) As the Attorney General conceded at oral argument, in resentencing under subdivision (d) “the resentencing court needs to abide by what’s already occurred in the case; the prosecution does not get a second bite at the apple.” Nothing in the statutory text suggests there should be a different outcome under section 1172.6, subdivision (e). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Fouse green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Banks green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Clark green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.