People v. Avent CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting his statements made in the comprehensive risk assessments and at the parole hearings because they were (1) subject to use immunity and (2) involuntary. We disagree with his first contention and deem the second forfeited. In 2018, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1437 to redefine murder liability. (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449.) Senate Bill No. 1437 also added section 1172.6, which created a procedure for those convicted of murder under the former law to petition the trial court for resentencing. (Curiel, at p. 449.) Under section 1172.6, once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the trial court “must in most cases convene an evidentiary hearing where the People bear the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the

2 defendant is guilty of the pertinent crime under the new, narrower definitions. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c) & (d).)” (People v. Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920, 927 (Duran).) At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court may consider “new or additional evidence.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).) It is well established that a defendant’s…