Court Opinion

ID: 9378288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 21:03:12.911743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.022678
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/9/23 P. v. Barragan CA2/2
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                B308259

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                           Super. Ct. No. BA068035)
         v.

JOSE BARRAGAN,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lisa B. Lench, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

         No appearance for Defendant and Appellant.

      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Daniel Change and David A. Voet, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      We affirmed the denial of defendant and appellant Jose
Barragan’s (defendant) petition for resentencing pursuant to
Penal Code former section 1170.95 in People v. Barragan
(Apr. 27, 2022, B308259) (nonpub. opn.).1 By order dated
December 21, 2022, the California Supreme Court returned this
case to this court with directions to vacate our previous decision
and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong (2022) 13
Cal.5th 698 (Strong).

                            BACKGROUND
      Defendant was convicted in 1994 of murder and robbery.2
As to the murder, the jury found true the special circumstance
that the murder was committed during the course of a robbery.
(§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A).) The jury also found true the allegation
pursuant to section 12022, subdivision (a)(l) that a principal was
armed with a firearm during the commission of the crime.
      Following the 1994 conviction of murder, attempted murder
and other felonies, and the felony murder special circumstance,
defendant was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility
of parole and other consecutive terms. We affirmed the judgment
in People v. Barragan (Apr. 4, 1996, B086562) (nonpub. opn.).

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code,
unless otherwise indicated.
      Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code former section 1170.95
was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats.
2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the section by its new
numbering only.

2     Defendant was also convicted of two additional robbery
counts, attempted murder, shooting a firearm at an inhabited
dwelling, and grand theft vehicle.

                                 2
       In 2020, defendant filed a petition for vacatur and
resentencing under section 1172.6, that the trial court denied at
the prima facie stage without appointing counsel, based upon the
jury’s finding of the special circumstance. We held the failure to
appoint counsel and permit briefing to be error but harmless, and
affirmed the denial on the grounds that the jury’s special
circumstance finding pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision
(a)(17) made defendant ineligible as a matter of law for
resentencing under section 1172.6. We further held that the
jury’s special circumstance finding could not be challenged in a
section 1172.6 proceeding based upon factors clarified after his
conviction in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and
People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark). We reconsider that
decision in light of Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th 698.

                           DISCUSSION
      In Strong, our high court held that a true finding on a
felony murder special circumstance allegation that predates
Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th 788 and Clark supra, 63 Cal.4th 522
does not preclude section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.
(Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 717-720.) This makes Banks
and Clark comparable to the kind of significant change in law
traditionally found to warrant a reexamination of earlier litigated
decisions, thereby rendering the rule of collateral estoppel
inapplicable. (Strong, supra, at pp. 719-720.) The court also held
that an erroneously denied petition based on that ground is not
subject to a substantial evidence review for harmless error, as
this would deny the defendant a determination beyond a
reasonable doubt that the correct standards were met. It would
also entail factfinding, which is prohibited at the prima facie

                                3
stage. (Id. at p. 720, citing People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952,
972.)
      The parties have been given the opportunity to file
supplemental briefs addressing these issues and the People have
done so, acknowledging that their previous arguments in People
v. Barragan, supra, B308259, were the same as the arguments
presented to and rejected by the high court in Strong, supra, 13
Cal.5th 698. The People concede that the matter should be
remanded to the trial court for it to issue an order to show cause
and conduct an evidentiary hearing. The petition must then be
granted unless the prosecution proves “beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted
murder under California law as amended by the changes to
Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6,
subd. (d)(3).) Upon reconsideration of the cause in light of
Strong, we conclude that the superior court erred in denying
defendant’s petition. We therefore remand the matter for the
issuance of an order to show cause and further proceedings in
accordance with section 1172.6, subdivision (d).

                                 4
                          DISPOSITION
      The opinion and decision filed in this case on April 27,
2022, is vacated and the denial of the section 1172.6 petition is
reversed. The matter is remanded with directions to reappoint
counsel, issue an order to show cause and for further proceedings
in accordance with section 1172.6, subdivision (d).

                                    ________________________
                                    CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

________________________
LUI, P. J.

________________________
HOFFSTADT, J.

                                5