Error and/or relief
The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is reversed.
First Holding:
Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) amended 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. It accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189. Section 188(a)(3) now prohibits imputing malice based solely on an individual’s participation in a crime and requires proof of malice to convict a principal of murder, except under the revised felony-murder rule in section 189(e). Section 189 requires the prosecution to prove the defendant was the actual killer; an aider and abettor to murder who acted with the intent to kill; or a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Authority:
PEN 189
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448
People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868–869
Second Holding:
The Legislature, to provide relief to those with existing murder convictions dependent on theories of the crime it had rejected, devised a path to resentencing. It has since expanded this path to allow relief for those with attempted murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 558
Third Holding:
If the record of conviction establishes ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law, the petition is properly denied at the prima facie stage. However, the petition and record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.
Authority:
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970-972
People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14
Fourth Holding:
We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.
Authority:
We independently review a trial court’s determination whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief.
Fifth Holding:
We conclude the defendant has made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. The record of conviction does demonstrate a possibility that he was convicted of second degree murder under an imputed malice theory, that is, that he was guilty of murder based solely on his participation in the robbery. In assessing section 1172.6 petitions, the jury instructions will be critical. Indeed we look at the jury’s verdicts, viewed in light of the court’s jury instructions, to assess whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6.
Authority:
People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 731
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 441