People v. Patton

Summary

The California Supreme Court addresses the prima facie showing required for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. It holds that a petitioner who offers only conclusory, checkbox allegations may fail to establish a prima facie case when the record of conviction, including an unchallenged preliminary hearing transcript, demonstrates conviction under a still-valid theory. The court affirms the judgment denying relief but remands to allow Ramon Patton an opportunity to amend his petition.

Holdings

1. After a facially sufficient petition is filed, a trial court may consult the record of conviction, including a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea, to refute conclusory allegations of eligibility when the record demonstrates that the conviction was based on a still-valid theory.
2. A petitioner who responds to a relief-foreclosing record of conviction with only conclusory allegations has not made the prima facie showing required by section 1172.6, subdivision (c). The petitioner must come forward with nonconclusory allegations identifying facts that would support relief or create a material factual dispute.
3. Requiring nonconclusory allegations at the prima facie stage does not shift the ultimate burden of proof to the petitioner. If the petition identifies a material factual dispute, the court may not resolve it at the prima facie stage and must issue an order to show cause if relief is not otherwise foreclosed.
4. The Court of Appeal correctly affirmed denial of Patton's petition because his conclusory allegations did not establish a prima facie case in light of the record showing him to be the sole direct perpetrator, but the matter must be remanded to allow him to seek leave to file an amended petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may rely at the Penal Code section 1172.6 prima facie stage on unchallenged facts in a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory checkbox allegations that a conviction was based on a now-invalid theory.
2. Whether relying on those undisputed record facts constitutes impermissible factfinding or improperly shifts the burden of proof to the petitioner.
3. Whether Patton should receive an opportunity on remand to amend his resentencing petition.

Disposition

affirmed