Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Sidonio Cruz-Santos, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of his petition for resentencing under California Penal Code § 1172.6. As recounted in the order, a jury in 2013 convicted him and a co-defendant of second-degree murder, unlawful marijuana cultivation, and assaults with a firearm, and convicted him of witness dissuasion, with firearm findings found true. His aggregate sentence is 42 years and 8 months to life. The state appellate court affirmed on direct appeal and the California Supreme Court denied review. The order gives the affirmance date as November 18, 2025 but cites a 2015 opinion.
In 2019 petitioner filed a state petition under § 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95), which lets defendants convicted of murder seek retroactive relief after amendments to the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court denied it in March 2021, and the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. On remand the trial court denied it again. It found that no third party was the actual killer, that the two defendants alone murdered the victim, and that each acted with intent to kill and either personally killed or aided and abetted the other. On October 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial but modified the judgment to vacate a restitution fine. Petitioner filed the federal petition on or about July 17, 2026 and has paid the filing fee.
The Court’s Holding
This is a screening order, not a merits ruling. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court reviewed a petition that alleges the evidence is insufficient to support the second-degree murder conviction in light of the statutory amendments, and that the state court therefore erred in denying resentencing. Construing the pro se filing liberally, the court concluded that it states a cognizable federal claim and merits an answer. It cited In re Winship's requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court acknowledged that § 1172.6 resentencing is a state remedy. It reasoned, however, that denial of a petition could potentially give rise to a due process claim if relief were warranted under the statute but denied. That would be so if the evidence were no longer sufficient to support a murder conviction because of the changes to Penal Code §§ 188 and 189 effective January 1, 2019. It cited the state appellate decision in People v. Torres for the concern that a person may be punished for conduct no longer prohibited, and that relief should not be denied on facts the jury did not necessarily find.
The court substituted Warden Michael Betzinger as respondent, the current custodian. Within 91 days respondent must file a Rule 5 answer showing cause why the writ should not be granted, with the relevant record documents. The docket sets that deadline at January 20, 2027. Petitioner may reply within 35 days after the answer. Alternatively, respondent may move within 91 days to dismiss on procedural grounds, with an opposition due 28 days later and a reply 14 days after that. Extensions are available for good cause if requested before the deadline. Petitioner was warned that failing to comply with court orders may lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Key Takeaways
- The court found only that, liberally construed, the petition states a cognizable claim and requires a response. It did not find that petitioner is entitled to relief.
- The claim is that the § 1172.6 denial left a murder conviction unsupported by sufficient evidence after the 2019 changes to Penal Code §§ 188 and 189.
- The court treated the federal due process theory as a possibility, saying a denial could potentially support a claim if relief was warranted under the statute but denied.
- Respondent has 91 days to file an answer or, instead, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. Petitioner then has set periods to reply or oppose.
Why It Matters
The order is a routine but instructive screening step. It shows a federal court willing, at the threshold, to treat a claim that a § 1172.6 denial left a murder conviction insufficiently supported as cognizable. The merits remain entirely open. The order does not decide whether relief is warranted and does not address any procedural defenses respondent may raise, such as those in a motion to dismiss.
Because this is an unpublished district court order screening a single petition, it has no precedential weight. Its reasoning is tentative, resting on a state appellate decision and phrased in terms of what could potentially give rise to a claim. The governing standard for federal relief will be decided only after the parties brief it.