Error and/or relief
In light of Emanuel, we reverse the denial of the defendant’s motion for resentencing filed under section 1172.6.
First Holding:
The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for resentencing, finding that he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to for human life during the commission of the offenses. there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. For that reason alone, he is entitled to resentencing relief under section 1172.6.
Authority:
People v. Guiffreda (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 112, 117
Second Holding:
Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed SB 1437 to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Defendants who were neither actual killers nor acted with the intent to kill can be held liable for murder only if they were ‘major participants in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.
When the felony-murder rule does not apply, a principal in the crime of murder can only be convicted where he acted with malice aforethought, and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.
Authority:
PEN 188
PEN 189
People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843, 846-847
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
Third Holding:
SB 1437 also created a procedure for offenders previously convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to seek retroactive relief if they could no longer be convicted of murder under the new law.
The process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that all requirements for eligibility are met, including that the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.
When the trial court receives a petition containing the necessary declaration and other required information, the court must evaluate the petition to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. If the defendant makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relief should be granted.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 843
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
Fourth Holding:
Because the standard under section 189(e)(3) for holding a defendant liable for felony murder is the same as the standard for finding a special circumstance under section 190.2(d), death penalty cases interpreting section 190.2(d), including Banks and Clark, are controlling here.
Authority:
People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788
People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522
People v. Guiffreda (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 112, 123
Fifth Holding:
To determine whether a defendant exhibited reckless indifference to human life under section 190.2(d), courts consider a list of considerations, including use of or awareness of the presence of a weapon or weapons, physical presence at the scene and opportunity to restrain confederates or aid victims, the duration of the crime, knowledge of any threat the confederates might represent, and efforts taken to minimize risks.
This list of factors is nonexhaustive. None of them is necessary, nor is anyone one of them necessarily sufficient. Instead, the totality of the circumstances must be analyzed to determine whether the defendant acted with reckless indifference.
Authority:
People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 884
People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 803
People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 618
Sixth Holding:
Reckless indifference to human life has a subjective and an objective element. As to the subjective element, the defendant must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the particular offense is committed, and he or she must consciously disregard the significant risk of death his or her actions create.
As to the objective element, the risk of death must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him or her, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.
Authority:
In re Scoggins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 667, 677
Seventh Holding:
On appeal from an order denying a petition under section 1172.6, we review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. We examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value that would support a rational trier of fact in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our job on review is different from the trial judge’s job in deciding the petition. While the trial judge must review all the relevant evidence, evaluate and resolve contradictions, and make determinations as to credibility, all under the reasonable doubt standard, our job is to determine whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support a rational fact finder’s findings beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.
Authority:
People v. Richardson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 1085, 1090
People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 298
People v. Guiffreda (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 112, 1225
People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57
Eighth Holding:
As the passenger in the car driven by another who drove dangerously and recklessly in an effort to evade capture, the defendant had no meaningful opportunity to interfere with the driving. The driving resulted in a collision with the victim’s car, killing her. There is insufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly created a grave risk to the life of that person.
Instead, the record shows that the defendant was, at worst, a passive passenger as the codefendant drove recklessly, which is insufficient to support a finding that the defendant acted with reckless indifference to the victim’s life.
Authority:
People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 896