People v. Aparicio ( 2015 )

Filed 1/9/15; unmodified opn. attached
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064995
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SF113576)
LUIS RAMON APARICIO, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
Defendant and Appellant. NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 5, 2015, be modified as
follows:
The paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 4 with "The Supreme Court" and
ending at the top of page 5 with "petition is appealable" is deleted.
There is no change in the judgment.
MCINTYRE, Acting P. J.
Copies to: All parties
Filed 1/5/15 opn. on rehearing (unmodified version)
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064995
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SF113576)
LUIS RAMON APARICIO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry J. Carlton and Warren J.
Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this case, we hold that the abuse of discretion standard applies when reviewing
an appeal from a trial court's denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section
1170.126 based on the trial court's finding that release of the petitioner would present an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (Undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.) We found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the order.
Appellant subsequently sought rehearing arguing section 1170.18, effective
November 5, 2014, as part of Proposition 47 (the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act)
changed the definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" as it applies to
inmates petitioning for recall of their third-strike life sentence under section 1170.126.
(See Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a) ["An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure
provides otherwise."].) We decline to address this new issue and affirm the order without
prejudice to appellant petitioning for relief from the superior court under section 1170.18.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 1985, a juvenile court found true the allegation that Luis Ramon Aparicio
committed battery with serious bodily injury after he dislocated the victim's nose by
pushing the victim's head onto concrete. Aparicio was 15 years old at the time. In August
1986, Aparicio attacked a victim with a knife. In October 1988, Aparicio suffered his first
strike conviction for robbery when he and three cohorts robbed two victims of their
stereos. During the struggle, one of the assailants stabbed one of the victims. Aparicio
was sentenced to 365 days in jail and three years of formal probation, but probation was
ultimately revoked and he was sentenced to three years in prison.
In June 1989, Aparicio suffered his second strike conviction after he pleaded guilty to
attempted robbery after trying to rob three victims with an ice pick. While fleeing the scene,
2
Aparicio's vehicle struck another vehicle and he was later found to be under the influence of a
controlled substance. He received a two-year prison sentence. In 1992, Aparicio received a
three-year prison term for possessing PCP and marijuana. In 1996, Aparicio was convicted of
battery and resisting a police officer. He received probation, but probation was later revoked.
In 1997, Aparicio was convicted of his commitment offense after burglarizing a car. During
the reading of his guilty verdict, Aparicio attacked a marshal and attempted to remove his
gun. He received a 27-years-to-life prison sentence under the Three Strikes Law.
Aparicio received nine write-ups while incarcerated. In February 1998, he received
administrative punishment after pinching a female prison employee on the buttocks and
grabbing her thigh. In June 1998, he headbutted another inmate. In October 1998, he flooded
his cell. In February 1999, he flooded his cell and threw urine at an officer. In December
2000, he obstructed a peace officer by refusing to accept a new cellmate. In 2001, 2005 and
2007, he engaged in mutual combat with other inmates. In November 2012, he stole desserts
from the dining hall.
A psychologist examined Aparicio. She found that he suffered from antisocial
personality disorder and posed a low-moderate risk of committing a future violent offense.
Nonetheless, she concluded that Aparicio did not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if
released. In November 2013, the trial court denied Aparicio's petition for recall of sentence
after reviewing the petition, Aparicio's criminal history, prison history and mental health
evaluation. Aparicio timely appealed.
3
DISCUSSION
I. General Legal Principles
"On November 6, 2012, voters approved Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform
Act of 2012 (the Act)." (People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal. App. 4th
1279, 1285 (Kaulick).) The Act provides a means whereby prisoners currently serving
sentences of 25 years to life for a third felony conviction, which was not a serious or
violent felony, may seek court review of their indeterminate sentences and, under certain
circumstances, obtain resentencing as if they had only one prior serious or violent felony
conviction and was thus a second-strike, rather than a third-strike, offender. (Id. at p.
1286.)
If the inmate satisfies the statutory criteria and is eligible for resentencing
(§ 1170.126, subds. (e), (f)), the trial court "shall" resentence the inmate "unless the court,
in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable
risk of danger to public safety." (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) "In exercising its discretion in
subdivision (f), the court may consider: [¶] (1) The petitioner's criminal conviction history,
including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior
prison commitments, and the remoteness of the crimes; [¶] (2) The petitioner's disciplinary
record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and [¶] (3) Any other evidence the
court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence
would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." (§ 1170.126, subd. (g).)
The Supreme Court is considering whether the denial of a section 1170.126 petition
is an appealable order. (Teal v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 308, review
4
granted July 31, 2013, S211708 [not appealable]; People v. Hurtado (2013) 216
Cal. App. 4th 941, review granted July 31, 2013, S212017 [appealable].) The People did
not raise this issue, impliedly conceding the denial of a resentencing petition is appealable.
Given this implied concession, we will assume without deciding that the denial of a
resentencing petition is appealable.
II. Standard of Review
The parties dispute what standard of review we apply when reviewing a trial court's
dangerousness finding under section 1170.126. Aparicio asserts we should review the
matter de novo because the issue presents a mixed question of law and fact. The People
assert the statutory language compels an abuse of discretion standard, and even assuming
the statutory language does not control and the issue is a mixed question of law and fact,
de novo review is not necessary because the determination of dangerousness does not
affect fundamental constitutional rights. We agree with the People.
Subdivision (f) of section 1170.126 provides that if the statutory criteria are
satisfied, the petitioner shall be resentenced "unless the court, in its discretion, determines
that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public
safety." Subdivision (g) of section 1170.126 sets forth a number of factors the court "may
consider" in "exercising its discretion" and gives the court additional discretion to consider
any other evidence it determines to be relevant. When interpreting a voter initiative, our
primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the voters' intent. (People v. Park (2013) 56
Cal. 4th 782, 796.)
5
Here, section 1170.126 expressly gives a trial court discretion in making a
dangerousness finding and broad discretion in what factors to consider in making this
finding. Aparicio even concedes the statutory language "suggest[s] a deferential abuse of
discretion standard of review [is] appropriate." Notably, subdivision (f) could have been
drafted to eliminate a court's use of discretion, for example, "the petitioner shall be
resentenced . . . unless [] resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of
danger to public safety." Because the statute expressly states that a court exercises
discretion in making a dangerousness finding, we review this finding for abuse of
discretion.
To avoid this common sense result, Aparicio argues a dangerousness finding under
section 1170.126 presents a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo because it is
primarily a legal determination regarding whether the undisputed facts meet the
requirements of the statute rather than a credibility determination regarding those facts.
While we agree the dangerousness finding under section 1170.126 can be classified as a
mixed question of law and fact, we conclude that application of fact to law in this instance
requires an inquiry that is essentially factual which we review for an abuse of discretion.
"Mixed questions of law and fact concern the application of the rule [of law] to the
facts and the consequent determination whether the rule is satisfied. If the pertinent
inquiry requires application of experience with human affairs, the question is
predominantly factual and its determination is reviewed under the substantial-evidence
test. If, by contrast, the inquiry requires a critical consideration, in a factual context, of
legal principles and their underlying values, the question is predominantly legal and its
6
determination is reviewed independently." (Crocker National Bank v. City and County of
San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 881, 888.) Classification of the dangerousness finding as
a mixed question of law and fact, however, does not determine our standard of review.
Rather, to determine the standard of review, we must focus "on the nature of the inquiry
required when we apply the relevant rule of law to the facts as established." (United States
v. McConney (9th Cir.1984) 728 F.2d 1195, 1204 (McConney).)
In McConney, the Ninth Circuit developed a functional analysis as a guide to
selecting the proper standard of review for mixed questions. (McConney, supra, 728 F.2d
at p. 1204.) Our high court has found the McConney analysis helpful in deciding the
proper standard of review for mixed questions. (People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 889,
899.) The McConney court noted three steps exist in deciding mixed fact-law questions,
establishing the facts, selecting the applicable rule of law and applying the law to the facts.
(McConney, at p. 1200.) The standards of review for the first two steps are well settled,
questions of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence and questions of law are reviewed
de novo. (Id. at pp. 1200-1201; People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 612, 649 [questions of
fact subject to review for substantial evidence is equivalent to federal "clearly erroneous"
scrutiny].)
What standard of review operates when reviewing a trial court's application of the
law to the facts is more troublesome. The McConney court noted the issue may be
determined by reference to the sound principles underlying settled rules of appellate
review. (McConney, supra, 728 F.2d at p. 1202.) "If the concerns of judicial
administration—efficiency, accuracy, and precedential weight—make it more appropriate
7
for a [trial] judge to determine whether the established facts fall within the relevant legal
definition, we should subject his determination to deferential, [substantial evidence]
review. If, on the other hand, the concerns of judicial administration favor the appellate
court, we should subject the [trial] judge's finding to de novo review. Thus, in each case,
the pivotal question is do the concerns of judicial administration favor the [trial] court or
do they favor the appellate court." (Ibid.)
Here, there is no dispute as to the facts or the law. Aparicio appears to argue that
application of the facts to the law presents a mixed fact-law question and thus the default
standard of review is de novo. Our high court, however, has rejected this approach. In
People v. Ault (2004) 33 Ca1.4th 1250, our high court addressed the mixed fact-law
question whether juror misconduct was so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial under the
abuse of discretion standard, concluding that de novo review need not apply even if the
prejudice issue was a mixed question of law and fact. (Id. at p. 1255.) In rendering its
decision, our high court noted several considerations influenced the standard of review,
including the importance of the legal rights at stake and the consequences of an erroneous
determination in the particular case. (Id. at pp. 1265-1266.)
Applying these considerations, we note that the resentencing permitted by section
1170.126, is not constitutionally required, "but an act of lenity on the part of the
electorate." (Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304.) A trial court is confronted with
the task of deciding a recall of sentence petition only after the petitioner has been
convicted and sentenced for the commitment offense. If a trial court makes an erroneous
8
determination on the recall petition, the consequences are not dire as the petitioner must
serve his or her existing sentence.
A dangerousness determination is not rooted in constitutional principles and
policies, does not require that a trial court consider abstract legal doctrines, weigh
underlying policy considerations or balance competing legal interests. (McConney, supra,
728 F.2d at p. 1205.) Rather, a dangerousness determination is essentially a factual
inquiry guided by a trial court's review of the petitioner's criminal conviction history,
disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated, and any other evidence
the court in its discretion determines relevant. (§ 1170.126, subd. (g).) Because the trial
court is vested with broad discretion in making the determination and in what evidence it
considers, the question whether a petitioner poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public
safety is likely to be highly fact dependent, rendering such decisions of little precedential
value in other cases with different fact patterns. The limited precedential value of such
decisions, each of which stands upon its own facts, reduces the need for de novo review.
(McConney, at p. 1201.) For these reasons, we hold that a trial court's determination of
whether a section 1170.126 petitioner poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public
safety is examined for an abuse of discretion.
Aparicio's comparison of a dangerousness finding under section 1170.126 with a
determination of factual innocence under section 851.8 is inapposite. If a person is
arrested and charged with a crime, but the case is later dismissed, the arrestee may petition
for a finding that he or she is factually innocent of the charges. (§ 851.8, subd. (c).) The
arrestee may be found factually innocent if "no reasonable cause exist[ed] to believe that
9
the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made." (§ 851.5, subd. (b),
italics added.)
In People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 895 (Adair), our high court addressed a split
of authority whether a finding under section 851.5 is reviewed de novo or for substantial
evidence. (Id. at p. 902.) The Adair court noted that despite the fact-intensive nature of
the inquiry, the statutory language required de novo review because "reasonable cause" is
a well-established legal standard " ' "defined as that state of facts as would lead a man of
ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong
suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime." ' " (Id. at p. 904.) Accordingly, it concluded
that the statutory scheme established an objective legal standard for assaying factual
innocence on both trial and appellate courts that "d[id] not accommodate any exercise of
discretion to which the appellate court should defer." (Id. at p. 909.) In contrast, the
standard presented under section 1170.126, whether a petitioner poses an "unreasonable
risk of danger to public safety," is not a well-established legal standard and the statute
expressly provides the trial court with discretion in making the determination and
discretion in what evidence it may consider in making the determination. (§ 1170.126,
subds. (f), (g).)
Finally, citing a footnote in Kaulick, the People argue the highly deferential "some
evidence" standard of review applies and we should uphold a denial order if some
evidence supported the trial court's determination that an inmate petitioning under section
1170.126 posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the public. (Kaulick, supra, 215
Cal.App.4th at p. 1306, fn. 29.) We disagree.
10
First, the People misread the footnote in Kaulick. The footnote at issue preceded
the court's conclusion that a petitioner is not denied equal protection if the dangerousness
finding under section 1170.126 is made under less than the beyond a reasonable doubt
standard of proof. (Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1305-1306.) In support of its
finding that no equal protection violation existed, the footnote noted that a decision
denying an inmate parole need only be supported by some evidence. (Id. at p. 1306, fn.
29.) The footnote states that the denial of parole and the denial of a petition for recall of
sentence are similar because a denial under both "simply means that the inmate remains
subject to his initial sentence unless certain findings are made; these findings need not be
established beyond a reasonable doubt." (Ibid.) The footnote does not suggest that
dangerousness determinations under section 1170.126 should be reviewed under the "some
evidence" standard of review.
Second, the "some evidence" standard of review applies to the review of a Board of
Parole Hearings or Governor's decision to grant parole to an inmate serving an
indeterminate sentence, "a decision vested in the executive branch, under our state
Constitution and statutes." (In re Shaputis (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 192, 198-199.) As part of
the judicial branch of government, courts may be called upon to review an executive
branch parole suitability determination to ensure that the determination is not arbitrary or
capricious (id. at p. 199), the court's review, however, is limited and highly deferential.
(Ibid.) As our high court has cautioned, "[i]ntrusions by the judiciary into the executive
branch's realm of parole matters may violate the separation of powers." (In re Prather
(2010) 50 Cal. 4th 238, 254-255; cf. In re Dikes (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 825, 829 [because
11
the Legislature granted the Department of Corrections broad authority for the discipline of
inmates in state prisons, we uphold any Department disciplinary decision that is supported
by some evidence].) Our review of a trial court's dangerousness finding under section
1170.126 does not implicate separation of powers issues and does not require the highly
deferential some evidence standard of review.
III. Analysis
Aparicio does not dispute his nine in-custody violations during his 16 years in
prison. He contends the trial court erred in denying his petition because other factors
"weigh[ed]" in his favor including, completing his GED, perfecting office skills,
remaining gang free while in prison, and participating in Narcotics and Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings and classes on alternatives to violence. We review the trial court's
determination for abuse of discretion with the burden on the party attacking the sentence to
show the decision was "so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree
with it." (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 367, 377.)
Aparicio is a career criminal whose life of crime started in 1985 when he committed a
battery resulting in serious bodily injury when he was 15 years old. The following year, he
attacked a person with a knife. In 1988, at age 19, he suffered his first strike conviction for
robbery. He suffered his second strike conviction for robbery the following year. Thereafter,
he was in and out of jail until he suffered his third strike conviction in 1997. The
psychological evaluator commented that Aparicio "reported limited use of alcohol and drugs,"
but noted that substance abuse "was a factor in at least two arrests, suggesting a more
extensive substance abuse history."
12
While incarcerated, Aparicio was not a model prisoner. He suffered nine write-ups
from 1998 to 2012, including three for mutual combat with other inmates. The evaluator
expressed concern about Aparicio's failure to take full responsibility for his actions and
tendency to minimize either the seriousness of his past actions or the harm caused to his
victims. She noted that Aparicio frequently attributed responsibility to circumstances or other
people, and this pattern applied to his most recent offense while incarcerated when Aparicio
stated he believed he was allowed to take food.
Aparicio can be commended for obtaining his GED, participation in vocational
programs and membership in the Buddhist Meditative Program. We note, however, it was
only within the last four years that Aparicio started to regularly attend Alcoholics and
Narcotics Anonymous meetings and that he did not complete an alternatives to violence
program until 2011. Aparicio's efforts to address his substance abuse and violent tendencies
are relatively recent when viewed in terms of his extensive and continuous criminal history
and length of incarceration. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Aparicio's petition.
In any event, even if we were to apply a de novo standard of review, we would find
that Aparicio is still a work in progress and resentencing was properly denied because he
remains an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. As the trial court noted, Aparicio's
efforts will "bear fruit when he's considered for release on parole."
IV. Issue on Rehearing
Proposition 47 created a new resentencing provision, section 1170.18, under which
certain individuals may petition the superior court for a recall of sentence and request
13
resentencing. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) Aparicio argues that he qualifies for resentencing under
section 1170.18 and the definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" contained
in Proposition 47 governs the identical section 1170.126 standard. (§ 1170.18, subd. (c).) He
also argues section 1170.18 is retroactive and the new definition necessarily governs any
pending appeal of a section 1170.126 denial. He asks that we remand the matter to the
superior court to either grant his resentencing petition or conduct a new hearing to determine
whether he constitutes an unreasonable risk to public safety under the new standard.
We requested supplemental briefing addressing whether (1) the superior court has the
authority to grant relief under Proposition 47 without further action by this court, and (2) the
issues raised in the petition for rehearing are more appropriately presented to the superior
court in the first instance. Both parties submitted supplemental briefing, which we have
considered.
We acknowledge the two issues argued by Aparicio present questions of law which we
have discretion to consider. (Sea & Sage Audubon Society, Inc. v. Planning Com. (1983) 34
Cal. 3d 412, 417 [a reviewing court has discretion to decide such an issue if it presents a pure
question of law arising on undisputed facts, particularly when the issue is a matter of
important public policy]; see e.g., People v. Chaney (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 1391 [ruling that
the definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" in Proposition 47 does not
apply retroactively to a defendant whose petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes
Reform Act of 2012 was decided before the effective date of Proposition 47]; People v.
Valencia (Dec. 16, 2014, F067946) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2014 Cal.App. Lexis 1149] [ruling
that section 1170.18, subdivision (c), enacted under Proposition 47, does not modify section
14
1170.126, subdivision (f)].) Nonetheless, we decline to decide these legal issues. Proposition
47 requires the filing of a petition for recall under section 1170.18, subdivision (a). Aparicio
may file the appropriate petition and the superior court must decide the threshold question
whether he is eligible for resentencing.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed without prejudice to appellant petitioning for relief from the
superior court under section 1170.18.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
15