Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to recall his sentence under section 1172.6. The evidence was insufficient to prove he is guilty of murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
First Holding:
SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder to ensure a person’s sentence is commensurate with his or her criminal culpability. Specifically, it amended section 188 by adding a requirement that, except as stated in section 189(e), all principals to murder must act with express or implied malice to be convicted of that crime. SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) extended relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder, but only if their convictions were based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Authority:
PEN 188(a)(3)
People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 869
Second Holding:
SB 1437 also created a procedural mechanism for defendants with eligible murder convictions to seek retroactive relief under the amended law. Under section 1172.6, if a petitioner makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.
At that hearing, the court sits as an independent fact finder and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder or attempted murder under the amended law. The parties may offer new or additional evidence at the hearing.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 960
People v. Garrison (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 735, 743
Third Holding:
Under direct aiding and abetting principles, an accomplice is guilty of an offense perpetrated by another [e.g., murder] if the accomplice aids the commission of that offense with knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s unlawful intent and with an intent to assist in achieving those unlawful ends. The defendant must not only know the direct perpetrator’s intent to commit murder, but he or she must share that intent. And, aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action. The word aids refers only to overt or affirmative forms of assistance.
Authority:
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463
People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118
People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868
Fourth Holding:
We review a trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition for substantial evidence. Under this standard, we review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a direct aider and abettor in the murder and attempted murders.
Authority:
People v. Emanuel (2025) 17 Cal.5th 867, 885
Fifth Holding:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice may be express or implied. The difference between express malice and implied malice is the former requires an intent to kill but the latter does not.
Authority:
PEN 187(a)
PEN 188(a)
People v. Soto (2018) 4 Cal.5th 968, 976
Sixth Holding:
Although intent to kill is certainly blameworthy, it is insufficient standing alone to render a person culpable for another’s acts. The aider and abettor must know the direct perpetrator intends to commit the murder and intend to aid the direct perpetrator in its commission. It is this mental relationship to the perpetrator’s acts that confers liability on the aider and abettor.
Authority:
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 453
Seventh Holding:
We cannot presume that because members of the defendant’s group belonged to the same gang, they must have known each other’s intent. Indeed, the law does not recognize a rule of guilt by association. We insist on proof of a defendant’s knowledge of, and specific intent to further, the group’s unlawful ends. Without knowledge of his cohort’s intent to kill, any of the defendant’s subsequent acts cannot constitute the actions necessary to establish aider and abettor liability.
Authority:
People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 165