Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition under section 1172.6 by construing the jury’s verdicts on two firearm enhancements as reflecting a finding that the defendant killed the victim by personally discharging a firearm.
First Holding:
In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) and altered the substantive law of murder in two areas.
First, with certain exceptions, it narrowed the application of the felony-murder rule by adding section 189(e) to the Penal Code. Under that provision, A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a specified felony in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: (1) The person was the actual killer. (2) The person 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 murder in the first degree. (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in section 190.2(d).
Second, SB 1437 imposed a new requirement that, except in cases of felony murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought to be convicted of murder. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.
Authority:
SB 1437
PEN 189
PEN 188
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448
People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 682 [discussing narrowed scope of the felony-murder rule]
Second Holding:
SB 1437 also created a mechanism for defendants convicted under now-invalid theories of murder to seek resentencing. Upon receipt of a petition containing the required information, the trial court must appoint counsel for the defendant if requested, hold a hearing, and determine if the petition has made a prima facie case for relief.
If a petitioner demonstrates a prima facie entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioning defendant is guilty of murder under a still-valid theory.
In deciding whether a petitioner has demonstrated a prima facie case, the court takes the 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.
At this stage, a court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 556, 558, 563
Third Holding:
If the record, including the court’s own documents, contains facts refuting the allegations made in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.
Where facts from the record of conviction are undisputed, accepting them over contrary legal allegations that are merely conclusory is not factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.
At this preliminary stage, denial of a section 1172.6 petition is proper only if the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief.
Whether the record of conviction shows the petitioner is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law is a legal question that we review de novo.
Authority:
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563, 565-566
People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658
People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14
Fourth Holding:
The People concede that the trial court erred in relying on the true findings on the firearm enhancements as a basis to deny relief at the prima facie stage.
We accept this concession because, contrary to the trial court’s reasoning, the verdicts on the firearm enhancements do not establish that the jury found the defendant guilty as the actual killer. The trial court instructed the jury that it could find the enhancements true if the defendant intentionally displayed a firearm in a menacing manner, intentionally fired it or intentionally struck or hit a human being with it.
Nothing in this instruction thus required the jury to find that the defendant himself shot and killed the victim.
The People contend that the trial court’s error was harmless in light of a record of conviction that shows the defendant was prosecuted and found guilty as the actual killer. They nevertheless concede that the defendant is entitled to an opportunity to amend his petition. We agree that remand is appropriate.
Patton held that a petitioner who offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief under section 1172.6, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing. The Patton court remanded the matter to allow that defendant to plead additional facts in support of a prima facie case for relief.
We remand to give the defendant an opportunity to plead facts he believes will demonstrate a prima facie case for relief.
Authority:
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 563, 569-570