People v. Ratcliff - Criminal Appeal

CA Court of Appeal Opinions

Filed March 12th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, filed an opinion in the case of People v. Ratcliff. The appeal concerns a defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, which was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

This document is a non-precedential opinion from the California Court of Appeal in the case of People v. Ratcliff (Docket No. B346145). The appeal stems from the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The defendant, convicted in 2004 of second-degree murder and first-degree robbery, argued she could not currently be convicted of murder due to imperfect self-defense. The trial court denied her petition, finding it successive and that she was the actual killer, an order the appellate court affirmed.

This filing represents a routine appellate court decision affirming a lower court's ruling. For legal professionals involved in criminal appeals or post-conviction relief in California, this opinion serves as an example of how section 1172.6 petitions are handled when the petitioner is deemed the actual killer. There are no new compliance requirements or deadlines imposed by this specific opinion, as it pertains to an individual case's appeal.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Ratcliff CA2/5

California Court of Appeal

Citations: None known
Docket Number: B346145
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (1)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/12/26 P. v. Ratcliff CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B346145

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA228118)
v.

PRISCILLA MAE RATCLIFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke II, Judge. Affirmed.
Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2004, a jury convicted defendant Priscilla Mae Ratcliff of
second degree murder (Pen. Code1, § 187, subd. (a)) and first
degree robbery (§ 211). The jury found true the allegation that
she used a deadly weapon during the murder (§ 12022, subd.
(b)(1)). The trial court sentenced her to 40 years to life.
On June 20, 2024, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition.
Among other things, defendant declared that she could not
presently be convicted of murder because of the doctrine of
imperfect self-defense. The trial court appointed counsel for
defendant.
On December 4, 2024, the Los Angeles County District
Attorney (District Attorney) filed its opposition to the petition.
The District Attorney asserted among other things that
defendant was the actual killer and that her petition should be
denied as a successive petition. The District Attorney submitted
in support an order dated March 26, 2019, denying defendant’s
prior section 1172.6 petition on the grounds that she was the
actual killer.
On April 21, 2025, the trial court denied the section 1172.6
petition. Defendant timely appealed.
On December 12, 2025, defendant’s appointed appellate
counsel filed an opening brief in which she did not identify any
arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedures
outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.
On January 2, 2026, defendant submitted a three-page
handwritten brief. Defendant contends that she acted in self-
defense, that the victim may have been intoxicated, that she was
unaware that the prosecutor would play a shortened version of a
recording at trial, and asks whether her sentence “was . . . double

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2
jeopardy.” She also requests that we review a detective’s
statements because that detective had opinions that were racially
biased. She further contends that jurors were dismissed based on
their race. Finally, she contends that her prior counsel failed to
review her medical records before trial.
Defendant’s arguments on appeal do not address her
eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6. Indeed, her
evidentiary challenges and her assertion that she acted in self-
defense do not bear on whether she could “presently be convicted
of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188
or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).)
Accordingly, we reject those challenges in this appeal. (See
People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438, fn. omitted
[§ 1172.6 “does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility on
the basis of alleged trial error”].) Moreover, section 1172.6 is not
the proper vehicle for challenges based on the Racial Justice Act
(§ 745). (See People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 1000
[petitioner in custody must bring Racial Justice Act claim in
petition for writ of habeas corpus].)