People v. Livingston CA4/3

DISCUSSION

We review de novo a trial court’s ruling whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing with respect to a section 1172.6 petition. (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52.) In People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (Patton), the California Supreme Court recently held that a trial court may rely on “unchallenged, relief-foreclosing facts within a preliminary hearing transcript to refute conclusory, checkbox allegations,” regardless of whether the defendant “stipulated to the transcript as the factual basis of a plea.” (Id. at pp. 564, 569, fn. 12.) While the Supreme Court further held that the Court of Appeal “correctly concluded Patton had not, on the record before it, made a prima facie showing” (id. at p. 569), it remanded the matter to allow the defendant to file an amended petition with additional facts (id. at pp. 569–570).

3 In this case, the trial court’s order denying the section 1172.6 petition lists the portions of the record it considered, which did not include the reporter’s transcript from the preliminary hearing. On the record before it, the court correctly found Livingston had not made a prima facie showing under section 1172.6. However,…