Statements made at Parole Hearing are admissible at resentencing hearing

People v. Rodriguez (Cal. Ct. App., Apr. 7, 2025, No. B332704) 2025 WL 1023731, at *1

Summary: Rodriguez appealed from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, contending that the trial court erred in admitting statements he made in a letter to the Board of Parole Hearings in 2011, and statements he made to a Forensic Psychologist in a 2016 Comprehensive Risk Assessment evaluating his suitability for parole. We find no error and affirm.

Im 1984, Rodriguez pled guilty to second degree murder. The prosecutor explained that the plea agreement was appropriate because no witnesses were available to  identify Rodriguez as the shooter. The prosecutor also noted that evidence revealed Rodriguez was under the influence of phencyclidine (PCP) at the time of the crime, which  may have entitled him to a voluntary intoxication defense.Rodriguez pled guilty and was sentenced to 15 years to life for second degree murder.

2011 Letter to the Board of Parole Hearings (Board)

In February 2011, Rodriguez submitted a written statement to the Board and accepted “full and unequivocal responsibility for [his] actions in this crime.”

2016 Comprehensive Risk Assessment (Assessment)

In 2016, Rodriguez underwent an assessment by a licensed psychologist with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The report covered Rodriguez’s description of the commitment offense: “I was in a moving car with three friends…. We were driving and passersby started arguing with us. A guy came up, and I shot the gun. It grazed his ear. Then two blocks later there was an argument with another guy. As we drove past him, I shot at him, but didn’t see him go down. I didn’t hear him say anything, but my crimie (co-defendant) said he called us ‘wetbacks.’ I just reacted. I was not in my best state of mind [due to the PCP and beer]. We just left the scene and I was arrested two days later. I didn’t know I killed him until the arrest.”

Resentencing Proceedings

In July 2020, Rodriguez filed a petition for resentencing contending the People could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a principal in the murder. The trial court appointed counsel to represent him. In October 2021, the People stipulated that Rodriguez had met his prima facie burden for resentencing relief. The trial court issued an order to show cause and set an evidentiary hearing.

Senate Bill No. 1437 and Section 1172.6

Senate Bill No. 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for finding a defendant guilty of murder and limited the scope of the felony murder rule. The bill added the requirement that, except as stated in section 189, “in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” The amendments to the Penal Code did not invalidate murder convictions based on the theory that the defendant was the sole and actual killer.

Under section 1172.6, a person may petition for resentencing if the person could no longer be convicted of that offense under amended section 188.

The Trial Court Did Not Err in Admitting Rodriguez’s 2011 Letter and his 2016 Statements in the Assessment Report

Rodriguez contends that his due process right were violated when the trial court to admit the statements he made in his 2011 letter to the Board and the 2016 assessment report identifying himself as the shooter

Rodriguez was not protected by the privilege against self-incrimination during his section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) evidentiary hearing, and incriminating statements he made during his parole proceedings were therefore admissible. The resentencing procedure outlined in section 1172.6 “ ‘is not a trial de novo on all the original charges’ ” in which the state seeks to convict or criminally punish a defendant.

Resentencing under section 1172.6 operates independently of a direct appeal, requiring persons seeking its “ ‘ameliorative benefits’ ” to initiate the process by filing a petition and allowing the parties to submit evidence outside the original record. It does not begin with a presumption of innocence and end in conviction; a defendant’s conviction remains “intact” throughout the process and is not vacated unless and until the prosecution fails to prove a defendant’s ineligibility for relief beyond a reasonable doubt. “[B]ecause a sentence modification under section 1170.95 is an act of lenity and not a criminal trial, the wrongful admission of evidence does not implicate defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment.”

Regulations prohibit the Board from requiring admissions of guilt when setting parole dates, permit incarcerated persons to “refuse to discuss the facts of the crime,” and establish that “the refusal shall not be held against the prisoner.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2236; see § 5011, subd. (b).) A defendant’s right to speak on their own behalf at a parole hearing cannot support a conclusion that parole hearing testimony was compelled or involuntary.”

The trial court properly considered Rodriguez’s 2011 and 2016 statements and determined he was not entitled to resentencing under section 1172.6.

Disposition

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.