P v. Perkins (4th Dist., Div.2): A PC1170.18 Petition Must Include Information or Evidence Establishing the Defendant's Eligibility for Relief

It has been educational to observe the judicial responses to the passage of Proposition 47.  Courts were suddenly faced with, in part, new forms of relief for which there were no existing procedures.  Specifically, Proposition 47 added section 1170.18 to the California Penal Code, which allowed certain defendants to petition the Superior Courts for reductions of their convictions and/or sentences.

Some Superior Courts, such as in Riverside County, created local judicial forms for 1170.18 petitions.  Because the petitions were likely to come from unrepresented defendants, creating these forms made it easier for non-lawyers to file their petitions and avoided burdening the courts' clerical staffs with floods of handwritten claims for relief.

But, the first draft of anything is unlikely to be perfect.  That is, in part, what this case is about.

Mr. Perkins was convicted, in addition to other crimes, of one count of possession of stolen property, PC 496(a) and three counts of grand theft, 487(d)(2).  After Perkins was sentenced, Proposition 47 passed in the November 2014 election.  Perkins filed a petition, using the judicial form adopted by the Riverside Superior Court.  He wanted the court to reduce his three 487(d)(2) convictions and his 496(a) conviction.  However the Riverside judicial form did not contain an option for 487 reductions.  So Perkins checked the box for his 496(a) conviction and made a handwritten request for 487 reductions.

The Riverside Superior Court denied Perkins' petition sans any evidentiary hearing and an appeal followed.

The Fourth District affirms the denial, but does so without prejudice, which means Perkins can refile his petitions with the guidance provided in the opinion (and surely a since-corrected judicial form).  The opinion accurately describes the Proposition 47-created challenges faced by both the Superior Courts and self-represented defendants.  More importantly, the opinion clarifies for defendants what they must provide in their petitions to avoid a summary denial.

Specifically, defendants have the burden to establish they are eligible for relief under 1170.18.  This requires the defendant to establish, in the case of 496(a) and 487 cases, that the value of the property at issue is 950 dollars or less.  So along with the judicial form, a defendant has the burden to attach some evidence, declaration, or citation to the record, that tells the court what is the property at issue and what is the value of the property.  Since Perkins did not do this, the denial is affirmed.  But since nobody told Perkins he was required to do so, he can have another shot.

Hopefully Superior Courts will change their judicial forms to inform defendants what they must provide to establish their eligibility.