Opinion
H046623
12-12-2019
In re ROGER ANTHONY BETTENCOURT on Habeas Corpus.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 61727)
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2019, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted defendant Roger Anthony Bettencourt's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus requesting a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 461 (Franklin). On January 23, 2019, the People appealed that order. This court initially granted the People's Petition for Writ of Supersedeas but later lifted the stay as moot. The sole issue raised by the appeal is whether a petitioner whose conviction is final may seek a Franklin hearing by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. While this appeal was pending, on June 3, 2019, the California Supreme Court decided In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook). The parties agree that the Cook decision is dispositive of the sole issue raised on appeal and move for summary reversal of the order pursuant to the authority expressed in Cook and the stipulation of the parties. We grant the motion and reverse the judgment pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
II. DISCUSSION
Bettencourt filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the trial court seeking a Franklin hearing. The trial court granted the petition prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Cook. In Cook, the Court held that the proper remedy for inmates who seek to preserve evidence following a final judgment for a Franklin hearing, is not to file a habeas petition but to file a motion in the superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of Penal Code section 1203.01 and Cook. (Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 458.) The Cook court reversed the order of the Court of Appeal that granted Cook's habeas petition and directed the Court of Appeal to deny the habeas petition without prejudice to filing a motion in the trial court as described in Cook. (Id. at p. 459.)
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Cook, the parties now move for summary reversal of the January 9, 2019 order of the Santa Clara County Superior Court granting Bettencourt's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to stipulation. The parties further request that this Court direct the superior court to enter a new order denying the Petition without prejudice to Bettencourt filing a Penal Code section 1203.01 motion consistent with Cook.
This court may only reverse a judgment pursuant to stipulation in accordance with the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That section requires us to make specific findings that (1) there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal, and (2) that the grounds for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. (Ibid.) Our authority to reverse a judgment pursuant to stipulation is similarly limited in civil and criminal cases. (People v. Brown (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 320, 323, citing Landberg v. Landberg (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 742,746.)
We find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) are satisfied here. The motion for summary reversal supports the conclusion that there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal because the reversal is based on new and dispositive Supreme court precedent. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8)(A).)
Further, the grounds for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment. Proceeding with this appeal where the Supreme Court's recently decided precedent is directly on point and procedurally dispositive would be a waste of judicial resources. Additionally, the risk that allowing a stipulated reversal in this case will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement in future cases of this nature is extremely low given that Cook was decided after the subject order, and it is unlikely that this situation will arise in the future. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8)(B).) As stated in the motion for stipulated reversal, reversing the judgment will result in a just and speedy determination of the cause pending before this court, and allow Bettencourt to pursue a remedy in the trial court as outlined by the Cook court in a timely manner.
III. DISPOSITION
The order granting Bettencourt's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The Santa Clara Superior Court is directed to enter a new order denying the Petition without prejudice to Bettencourt filing a Penal Code section 1203.01 motion consistent with the California Supreme Court's decision in Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th 439. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.
/s/_________
Greenwood, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Grover, J. /s/_________
Danner, J.