Court Opinion

ID: 9892963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 17:03:51.037475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:51.112722
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/25/23 P. v. Huerta 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081054

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD189649)

DAVID HUERTA,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michael S. Groch, Judge. Reversed with directions.
         David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A.
Sevidal, and Lynne G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                        MEMORANDUM OPINION1
      David Huerta appeals from an order denying his petition for
resentencing of a 2015 second degree murder conviction under Penal Code

section 1172.6.2 The People concede the trial court erred by denying Huerta
relief at the prima facie stage without appointing counsel or allowing
briefing. We accept the concession.
      During a gang-related brawl between Huerta and his companions on
the one hand, and J.H. and his companions on the other, J.H. was stabbed 29
times and died. A jury found Huerta guilty of second degree murder (§ 187,
subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury
acquitted Huerta of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). The trial court
sentenced Huerta to a three-year state prison term for the assault conviction,
plus a consecutive term of 15 years to life on the second degree murder
conviction. On direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment. (People v.
Huerta (Feb. 15, 2017, D069552) [nonpub. opn.].)
      On July 20, 2022, Huerta filed a form petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 as a self-represented litigant. He checked the box requesting
appointment of counsel. The trial court denied the petition⎯without
appointing counsel, without any briefing, and without a hearing⎯stating:
“Petitioner was the actual killer and was convicted under that theory. Since

1    We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

2     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Huerta brought
his petition under former section 1170.95, which was amended effective
January 1, 2022, and then renumbered as section 1172.6 without substantive
change on June 30, 2022. (See Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10, (Assem. Bill No.
200).) We will refer to the statute by its current number.

                                       2
he was not convicted under a felony murder theory, Penal Code section
1170.95 offers no relief, and the Petition is denied.”
      Huerta contends the trial court erred by finding him ineligible for relief
at the prima facie stage without counsel, briefing, or a hearing. (People v.
Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis) [section 1172.6 petitioner is entitled
to counsel upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition, and only after
appointment of counsel and opportunity for briefing may the court consider
record of conviction to determine whether petitioner made a prima facie
showing].) Based on the jury instructions given—including the instructions
on natural and probable consequences (CALCRIM No. 403), first or second
degree murder with malice aforethought (CALCRIM No. 520), and first
degree murder (CALCRIM No. 521)—Huerta reasons it is possible the jury
convicted him of second degree murder based on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine and contends there is nothing in the record of
conviction that conclusively shows he was the actual killer. He thus contends
had he been appointed counsel and the matter properly briefed, it is
reasonably probable that the court would not have denied his petition at the
prima facie stage. (Lewis, at pp. 957−958 [the deprivation of the right to
counsel is state law error tested for prejudice under People v. Watson (1956)
46 Cal.2d 818].)
      The Attorney General concedes the error and that it was prejudicial.
The Attorney General agrees with Huerta there is nothing in the record of
conviction establishing that Huerta was ineligible for relief as a matter of
law. We accept the Attorney General’s concession as proper and remand the
matter for appointment of counsel and further proceedings in accordance
with section 1172.6.

                                         3
                                 DISPOSITION
        The order denying Huerta’s section 1172.6 petition is reversed and the
matter remanded. The trial court is directed to appoint counsel for Huerta
and thereafter proceed as required by section 1172.6, subdivisions (c) and
(d)).

                                                                         DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                        4