Error and/or relief
It was error for the trial court to deny the section 1172.6 petition for recall of sentence based on its conclusion that the defendant was ineligible for relief because there was substantial evidence that he was convicted on a still-valid theory of murder.
First Holding:
Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine 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. As part of these ameliorative changes, malice, a key element the People must prove in a murder prosecution, may no longer be imputed to a defendant solely because the defendant participated in another crime. 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, as described in subdivision (d) of section 190.2—that is, the statute defining the felony-murder special circumstance.
Authority:
SB 1437
PC 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558
Second Holding:
The trial court used an incorrect legal standard to deny the petition at the prima facie stage. The court erred by applying the substantial evidence standard in concluding defendant was ineligible for relief. The statute does not permit a court to deny a petition at the prima facie stage based on a determination that substantial evidence shows defendant is ineligible for relief. Instead, at this stage, the defendant need only make a prima facie case for relief. In this inquiry, the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971
Third Holding:
Should a trial court encounter a material fact dispute, the court may not resolve that dispute at the prima facie stage and should instead grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing.
Authority:
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 567