Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2008, a jury convicted Benjamin Gonzalez of the premeditated, deliberate, and willful murder of Norman Cox, and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life, doubled to 50 years to life under the Three Strikes law. Gonzalez had previously pled no contest in 2006 to making criminal threats and resisting an executive officer, receiving a suspended sentence and three years' probation. After the murder conviction, the trial court found he violated probation and imposed consecutive eight-month terms on the 2006 counts. On direct appeal, this court concluded the probation-violation sentence was unauthorized because the indeterminate term could not serve as the principal term for the determinate sentences, and remanded for resentencing on the 2006 conviction.
In January 2019, Gonzalez filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95). After an initial denial on constitutional grounds and reversal, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on October 20, 2021, found defendant guilty of murder as a direct aider and abettor, and denied the petition; we affirmed that denial in 2023. On June 3, 2024, Gonzalez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting his determinate sentence was unlawful and the section 1172.6 denial was error. On March 25, 2025, the trial court corrected the determinate sentences to concurrent 16-month terms but denied the section 1172.6 petition, again finding him guilty as a direct aider and abettor.
The Court’s Holding
We grant Gonzalez's request to construe the trial court's order as one denying a petition under section 1172.6, but we affirm because the petition is barred by issue preclusion. Issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue when it is identical to one decided in a former proceeding, was actually litigated and necessarily decided, the prior decision was final and on the merits, and the party against whom preclusion is sought is the same as or in privity with the prior party.
All threshold requirements are met here. The issue—whether Gonzalez can presently be convicted of murder under the change of law effective January 1, 2019—is identical to the prior proceeding. It was actually litigated at the October 20, 2021 evidentiary hearing, necessarily decided when the court found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder as a direct aider and abettor, and final and on the merits because we affirmed the denial on appeal. The parties are the same or in privity.
The court rejected Gonzalez's argument that Senate Bill No. 775, effective January 1, 2022, was an intervening change in law defeating preclusion. Gonzalez did not articulate how the amendment applied to his petition; the jury instructions showed he was convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine for assault, not under any other theory imputing malice solely from participation; and he raised no new facts beyond those presented at the first hearing. A person convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine could already petition since January 1, 2019, which Gonzalez had done.
Key Takeaways
- A successive section 1172.6 resentencing petition may be barred by issue preclusion when the issue of present murder conviction was actually litigated and necessarily decided at a prior evidentiary hearing and affirmed on appeal.
- Issue preclusion requires an identical issue, actual litigation, necessary decision, a final merits judgment, and the same party or privity.
- An intervening change in law does not automatically defeat collateral estoppel; the defendant must show the amendment applies and raise new facts not previously presented.
- Senate Bill No. 775 did not apply where the jury was instructed only on the natural and probable consequences doctrine for assault, not on other imputed-malice theories, and the defendant could already petition under that doctrine since 2019.
- An order denying habeas corpus is generally nonappealable, but the Court of Appeal may construe it as a section 1172.6 denial when the defendant requests.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that issue preclusion can bar successive section 1172.6 petitions when the defendant has already had a full evidentiary hearing on whether he can presently be convicted of murder and that determination was affirmed on appeal. It underscores that defendants must raise all available arguments and evidence at the initial hearing, as they cannot relitigate the same issue later absent an applicable change in law or new facts.
It also clarifies that Senate Bill No. 775's expansion of section 1172.6 to other imputed-malice theories does not automatically render collateral estoppel inapplicable. Defendants must demonstrate how the amendment applies to their specific jury instructions and conviction theory.