The Attorney General rarely concedes error in a criminal case. Particularly, as here in a murder case.
It's even rarer for the Court of Appeal to nonetheless reject that concession. Yet it happens today.
It's a resentencing case, and the Attorney General admits that on the limited record introduced in the trial court, there was insufficient evidence to prove that Javier Villagrana -- who pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter -- was actually guilty of murder. Nonetheless, Justice Yegan, joined by Justice Gilbert, holds that he was in fact guilty of murder, and hence ineligible for sentencing. Justice Baltodano dissents.
It's a fact- and record-specific case, so ordinarily, I wouldn't think that the matter would go any further. But given the stakes, as well as the disagreement in the panel, I wouldn't be extraordinarily surprised if the California Supreme Court granted review.
I suspect -- strongly -- that Justice Yegan is correct that Mr. Villagrana was in fact guilty of actual murder. But I also suspect that Justice Baltodano might well be correct that the actual evidence introduced in the trial court below was insufficient to support that conclusion. Because, at least in theory, there may perhaps be lots of ways in which Mr. Villagrana could have been only guilty of voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, that are consistent with the limited record introduced below.
We'll see if this piques the attention of anyone higher up.
