What is the test for admitting evidence in a motion for a new sentencing hearing under Proposition 36 or Proposition 47?

In our recent decision in People v. Perkins (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 129, at page 140, we noted a distinction between the evidence that may be submitted at a resentencing hearing under Proposition 36 and the prima facie showing of eligibility to be made in a petition under Proposition 47. There, we held that in any new petition, the defendant could describe the stolen property and attach some evidence showing he is eligible for relief. In a footnote, we went further to explain our reasoning: Eligibility for resentencing under Proposition 36 turns on the nature of the petitioner's convictions, whereas in a petition under Proposition 47, eligibility turns on the simple factual question of the value of the stolen property. (Id., at p. 140, fn. 5.)

Perkins, however, was concerned with the initial pleading stage in addressing the petitioner's burden of making a prima facie case pursuant to People v. Sherow, supra, where the petition failed to allege sufficient facts to show the defendant's eligibility. It did not address the conduct of a hearing at which the trial court would make its determination, or the type of evidence that could be admitted.