Error and/or relief
Summary denial of of the defendant’s 1172.6 petition without an evidentiary hearing was error where the jury had been given instructions that permitted it to find defendant guilty of murder under the felony murder rule or under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and allowed it to find him guilty of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
First Holding:
In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1437 that amended sections 188 and 189 to significantly limit the reach of the felony-murder rule and to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of first and second degree murder as it applies to aiding and abetting. The bill also added section 1172.6 to provide a procedural mechanism for defendants who could no longer be convicted of murder because of the amendments to petition for retroactive relief. The Legislature later amended section 1172.6 effective January 1, 2022, to provide resentencing relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Authority:
SB 1437
PEN 188
PEN 189
PEN 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959
People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 457
Second Holding:
Section 189 as amended effective January 1, 2019, provides that a participant in the perpetration of a robbery or kidnapping (or attempted perpetration of those crimes) in which a death occurs is liable for first degree murder only if it is proven that the participant was the either (i) the actual killer; (ii) was not the actual killer but with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of the first degree murder; or, (iii) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Authority:
PEN 189
Third Holding:
Upon receipt of a petition that sets forth the required allegations, the trial court must conduct a prima facie analysis and hearing to determine the defendant’s eligibility for relief. Although the court should not reject the petition’s factual allegations without first conducting an evidentiary hearing, it may make a credibility determination adverse to the defendant if the court’s own documents refute those allegations.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6(b)(3) and (c)
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960
Fourth Holding:
We review de novo the trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage.
Authority:
People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 545
Fifth Holding:
It appears the trial court found that giving instructions that allowed the jury to find defendant guilty of murder based on theories of liability that had been abrogated by SB 1437 was harmless because the jury also received instructions on the still valid theories of being a major participant who aided and abetted with an intent to kill or acted with reckless indifference to human life. The difficulty here, however, is defendant was convicted in 2012, well before Banks clarified the law concerning major participant findings by identifying a series of considerations to assist in the inquiry whether a defendant is a major participant. Clark reiterated the Banks elements and substantially clarified the considerations relevant to determining whether a defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Authority:
People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 798-804
People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 611-623
Sixth Holding:
Unless a felony murder defendant was tried after Banks, a major participant finding will not defeat an otherwise valid prima facie case for section 1172.6 resentencing relief and, unless a defendant was tried after Clark, a reckless indifference to human life finding will not defeat an otherwise valid prima facie case for such relief. Because defendant was convicted before Banks and Clark, the special circumstance findings that he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life do not preclude him from establishing a prima facie case for resentencing relief.
Authority:
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 721