The California Supreme Court chose to review a San Bernardino case, the court announced on June 21.
The Supreme Court will review San Bernardino Superior Judge Katrina West’s decision to review the cases’ preliminary hearing transcript when denying defendant Michael Pineda’s motion for resentencing:
“Did the trial court engage in impermissible judicial factfinding by relying on the preliminary hearing transcript to deny defendant’s Penal Code Section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage?” the Supreme Court asks.
Pineda was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison after pleading guilty to second degree murder with a firearm enhancement in 2014. He is currently incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison in Lassen County.
He was charged with murder in a fatal shooting that occurred on Sept. 20, 2012, according to the case’s appellate ruling. The victim was found on a street with multiple gunshot wounds.
The victim and witnesses were not identified in the appellate ruling.
Three people told police that Pineda had shot the man following an argument in a car. That car’s driver told officers she had been driving four people: Pineda, the victim, Pineda’s half-brother, and a woman. She pulled her car to the side of the road due to the argument, she said. The men continued fighting on the side of the road, until she saw Pineda shoot the victim, she said.
She said that Pineda told them not to tell anyone what happened, under the threat of death. The female passenger and Pineda’s half-brother both told police a similar story.
Police also said they talked with Pineda’s girlfriend, who said, “When they went to take care of the business with somebody that he had to deal with, it didn’t go the way he wanted it, and he had to shoot the guy.”
Pineda, the driver and the female passenger were later pulled over for erratic driving, at which point the witnesses talked to the police. A revolver was found in the car.
Pineda was charged with murder, two counts of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, and possession of a firearm by a felon. His plea deal resulted in the dissauding counts to be dropped. He received 15 years to life for murder, plus 10 years on the firearm enhancement.
Counsel on both sides stipulated that the court could consider the preliminary hearing to establish a factual basis for the plea.
On May 18, 2022, Pineda filed to be resentenced under Penal Code Section 1172.6. The section allows people convicted of murder under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences to have their sentence reduced. Those rules and theories had previously caused people to be convicted of murder even if they did not directly murder the victim: for example, they could have been in an armed robbery, and their accomplice shot the victim.
On July 18, 2022, prosecutors filed opposition to his petition, arguing that he was the direct killer, and not eligible for relief.
West, the judge, denied Pineda’s petition on Jan. 27, 2023. She agreed that Pineda was the direct killer, as proven by the facts described in the preliminary hearing. Pineda’s counsel maintained that West could not consider the facts from the preliminary hearing when making her decision.
Pineda appealed, arguing that his plea was generic and did not specify which theory of liability he would be convicted for. He did not admit the truth of the testimony at the preliminary hearing, he argued. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two agreed with him and reversed West’s ruling on April 11.
The appellate court found that West should have issued an order to show cause, and then held further hearings.
“Even where a defendant stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as the factual basis for a plea, reliance on the transcript has been held improper at the prima facie stage of a resentencing proceeding,” their ruling said.
Their decision quoted the 2021 case People v. Rivera: “Absent an indication that a defendant admitted the truth of particular facts, the stipulation to a factual basis for the plea does not ‘constitute a binding admission for all purposes.’” The Rivera case, in turn, quoted the 2008 case People v. French.
The preliminary hearing transcript contained only hearsay, due to the only facts provided being from police officers who did not view the murder themselves, and only repeated testimony from witnesses, the ruling said.
The appellate court also agreed that the plea deal did not contain an admittance of any specific kind of murder, and that Pineda did not admit that he was the actual shooter.
Case information
Marta Stanton, under appointment, represents Pineda.
Deputy Attorney General Alan Amann represents the people.
Superior Court Case No. FVA1201409
Appellate Case No. E080666
Read the appellate ruling here.
