Filed 10/6/21 P. v. Godinez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAFAEL GODINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D078223

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD118353)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. 

Benjamin Kington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney 

General, Steve Oetting and Kristen Ramirez, Deputy Attorneys General, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1996, a jury convicted Rafael Godinez of first degree murder (Pen. 

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found Godinez was armed with a 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Godinez was sentenced to an indeterminate 

term of 26 years to life in prison. Godinez appealed, and this court affirmed 

the judgment in a nonpublished opinion, People v. Godinez, D027646 (Sept. 

22, 1998). 

In 2020, Godinez filed a petition for resentencing under 

section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. The 

People responded that Godinez had stated a prima facie case and may be 

entitled to relief. The People argued the court should issue an order to show 

cause (OSC) and conduct an evidentiary hearing. The trial judge denied the 

petition without issuing an OSC or holding an evidentiary hearing. The 

court said, “And, again, I’m going to deny the petition because I think he was 

an active participant.” The court did not specify the materials reviewed or 

the source of the conclusion that Godinez was an active participant.

Godinez appeals, contending the court erred in denying the petition 

without issuing an OSC and holding an evidentiary hearing as required by 

statute.

The Attorney General agrees with Godinez and argues we should 

reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

We agree with the People’s position in the trial court and the 

agreement of the parties to this appeal. We will find the trial court erred in 

the premature dismissal of the petition. We will reverse and remand.
3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

We will adopt the facts from our previous opinion as background for the 

discussion which follows. (Godinez, supra, D027646.)2

“On the evening of July 28, 1994, Erik [G.] attended a party at the 

home of Sean [C.] in Ocean Beach. A few minutes after Erik arrived at the 

party, Godinez asked Deanna [R.] if he could borrow her car in order to buy 

more beer. Godinez, Errol [S.], Joe [P.] and Erik got into [Deanna’s] car and 

drove away. Godinez was driving the car. Prior to leaving the party, 

someone said that Erik had a lot of money and was going to buy the beer. 

“On July 29, 1994, Karen [M.] was in a residence in Ocean Beach. 

Between 2 and 3 a.m., she heard one gunshot, then perhaps another shot 

approximately 15 to 30 seconds later. She then heard a car screech around 

the corner. 

“On July 29, 1994, Jan [G.], who lived in Ocean Beach, heard three 

gunshots between 2:40 and 2:45 a.m. The first two shots were fired in fairly 

rapid succession, and the third shot was fired approximately 15 to 20 seconds 

later.

“Approximately 45 minutes after they left [Sean’s] house, Godinez, 

[Joe], [Sean] and [Errol] returned in [Deanna]’s car. Erik was not with them. 

Godinez was driving the car. Godinez, [Errol], [Joe], and [Sean] were 

behaving in a paranoid manner. [Errol] and [Joe] ran from the parking space 

into [Sean]’s room. As [Sean] made his way toward the house, a car 

approached, and he warned the others that the cops were coming. [Sean]

then approached his friend Dan [M.] and had a conversation with him. 

2 We do so in nearly verbatim fashion except to sometimes use first 

names in naming third parties involved in the subject offenses to protect 

privacy as much as possible.
4

[Errol] ran away from [Sean]’s house and then returned approximately one 

hour later. Either [Sean] or Godinez showed [Dan] approximately $200 in 

$20 bills that had what appeared to be blood on them. 

“At approximately 6:10 a.m. on July 29, 1994, Ronald [A.], who lived in 

a residential area in Ocean Beach was backing his car out of his driveway 

when he noticed Erik lying in the alley. [Ronald] called the police, after 

which [Erik] was transported by paramedics to the hospital, where he later 

died. Neither police officers nor paramedics recovered any money from the 

crime scene. An autopsy revealed that [Erik] suffered three gunshot wounds 

from a .22-caliber firearm fired from a distance of four to five feet. 

“On August 21, 1995, the police approached [Deanna], based upon a tip 

that she knew something about the murder of [Erik]. Godinez was arrested 

shortly thereafter.” 

DISCUSSION

Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437) was 

enacted to “ ‘amend[ ] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability 

is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the 

intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who 

acted with reckless indifference to human life.’ ” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 

Cal.5th 830, 842.)

Section 1170.95, subdivision (c) provides: “The court shall review the 

petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that 

the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section. If the petitioner has 

requested counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to represent the petitioner. 

The prosecutor shall file and serve a response within 60 days of service of the 

petition and the petitioner may file and serve a reply within 30 days after the 
5

prosecutor’s response is served. These deadlines shall be extended for good 

cause. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is 

entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.”

When a trial court reviews a petition for resentencing, the court first 

determines if the petitioner has shown a prima facie case for relief under the 

statute. If so, the court must issue an OSC and hold an evidentiary hearing 

on the petition. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962.) However, the 

court may deny the petition if the person is ineligible as a matter of law. 

(People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 980-981.) The court may 

review the record of conviction, including any prior appellate opinion, to 

determine if the petitioner’s allegations are rebutted by the record. (Lewis, at 

p. 972.) However, the court may not engage in factfinding and weighing 

credibility at the prima facie stage of petition review. (Drayton, at p. 979.)

In this case, it is not possible to discern what the trial court relied on to 

reach the conclusion that Godinez was an active participant, which even if 

true, would not justify summary denial of the petition. Review of the record 

before us does not permit a finding of ineligibility as a matter of law. As 

Godinez contends, and the People have repeatedly urged, Godinez’s eligibility 

for relief can only be assessed after the issuance of an OSC and conducting an 

evidentiary hearing. The trial court erred in summarily denying the petition 

for resentencing.
6

DISPOSITION

The order denying Godinez’s petition for resentencing is reversed. The 

matter is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to issue an OSC 

and conduct an appropriate evidentiary hearing as required by statute.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O'ROURKE, J.