Court Opinion

ID: 9371259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 21:02:15.779371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.507224
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/15/23 P. v. Ting 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                B311125

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                           Super. Ct. No. BA253204)
         v.

SUNNY HSIAO SHIN TING,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Reversed.

     Brad Kaiserman, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan S. Pithey, Assistant Attorney
General, Idan Ivri and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
      We affirmed the denial of defendant and appellant Sunny
Hsiao Shin Ting’s (defendant) petition for resentencing pursuant
to Penal Code former section 1170.95 in People v. Ting (Dec. 22,
2021, B311125) (nonpub. opn.).1 By order dated November 30,
2022, the California Supreme Court returned the case to this
court with directions to vacate our decision dated December 22,
2021, and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Strong
(2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong).
      In 2007, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder
and found true the felony-murder special circumstance alleged
pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), as well as several
firearm enhancement allegations.2 Defendant was sentenced to
prison for life without the possibility of parole, which we affirmed
in People v. Ting (Sept. 15, 2009, B209911) (nonpub. opn.).
      In 2021, defendant filed a petition for vacatur and
resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court denied
defendant’s facially sufficient petition at the prima facie stage
without appointing counsel, based upon the jury’s true finding
under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17), as well as the court’s

1     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.
      All further unattributed code sections are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise stated.
2     Defendant was also convicted of first degree robbery, but
that count was reversed.

                                 2
finding that the facts summarized in our appellate opinion
supported the jury’s finding and demonstrated that he was
ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. We 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). In addition, we conducted a substantial
evidence review of the evidence relevant to Banks and Clark as
summarized in our opinion affirming defendant’s judgment, and
we concluded that any error in denying the petition was
harmless. We now 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.) Such a finding is
premised on outdated legal standards, making Banks and Clark
comparable to the kind of significant change in law traditionally
found to warrant a reexamination of earlier litigated decisions,
thus rendering the rule of collateral estoppel inapplicable.

                                 3
(Strong, supra, at pp. 719-720.)3 The court also held that an
erroneously denied petition 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; and it would entail
factfinding, which is prohibited at the prima facie stage. (Strong,
at p. 720, citing People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972.)
       In their supplemental brief addressing these issues, the
People acknowledge that their previous arguments in People v.
Ting, supra, B311125 were the same 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 for the trial
court to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary
hearing, after which the petition must be granted unless
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).) We
agree. 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).

3      The court made clear that while its decision did not
foreclose reexamination of all special circumstance findings, it
also did not mean that all such findings should be open to
relitigation. (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 714.)

                                 4
                         DISPOSITION
      The opinion and decision filed in this case on December 22,
2021, is vacated and the denial of the section 1172.6 petition is
reversed. The matter is remanded for further proceedings in
accordance with section 1172.6, subdivisions (c) and (d).

                                    ___________________________
                                    CHAVEZ, J.
We concur:

_______________________________
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J.

_______________________________
HOFFSTADT, J.

                                5