Opinion
B280353
05-15-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BATTISE COLLINS, Defendant and Appellant.
Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah Hill and Timothy L. O'Hair, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA230105) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah Hill and Timothy L. O'Hair, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2003, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Battise Collins (defendant) of three counts of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, (subd. (a)), and one count of false imprisonment (§ 236). Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate life term under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). After voter approval of Proposition 36 in 2012, defendant petitioned to have his sentence recalled pursuant to section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition following a hearing, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's conduct demonstrated an intent to cause great bodily injury.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant appealed, contending the trial court improperly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof to find him ineligible for resentencing. When we decided defendant's appeal, the Courts of Appeal were in conflict as to the appropriate burden of proof. (People v. Arevalo (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 836 [applying beyond a reasonable doubt standard]; People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 [applying preponderance of the evidence standard] (Osuna).) We issued an opinion (People v. Collins (Nov. 29, 2017, B280353) [nonpub. opn.] (Collins)) applying the standard of proof under the Osuna line of cases—preponderance of the evidence.
Our Supreme Court subsequently decided in People v. Frierson (2017) 4 Cal.5th 225 (Frierson) that the proper standard of proof when evaluating whether a defendant is eligible for section 1170.126 relief is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. (Id. at p. 240 [disapproving Osuna].) Counsel for defendant failed to timely seek Supreme Court review of our decision in Collins, but we granted defendant's request to recall the remittitur that issued pursuant to our prior opinion.
We now decide the issue presented again, this time with the benefit of Frierson. As that case holds, the proper standard of proof to find a defendant ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126 after that defendant has met the initial burden to establish eligibility is beyond a reasonable doubt. (Frierson, supra, 4 Cal.5th at pp. 239-240.) That is not the standard the trial court applied in ruling on defendant's section 1170.126 petition for resentencing. We accordingly reverse and remand to allow the trial court to determine defendant's petition under the proper standard.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's section 1170.126 petition is reversed, and we remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Frierson.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, Acting P. J. We concur:
MOOR, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------