Error and/or relief
The trial court denied the defendant’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage on the ground that the record of conviction showed the defendant is ineligible for resentencing. The trial court exceeded the limited scope of review permitted at the prima facie stage under section 1172.6 and engaged in fact finding that should have been reserved for the evidentiary stage.
First Holding:
Under section 1172.6 the prima facie inquiry is limited. While a court may consider whether the record of conviction refutes eligibility allegations at this stage, a trial court should not engage in fact finding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. Indeed, at the prima facie stage, the strength of the evidence in the record is not material.
Instead, at the prima facie stage the question in applying section 1172.6 is not whether it is likely that the defendant was convicted of murder on a now-invalid grounds but whether the court’s jury instructions or other aspect of the record of conviction foreclose that possibility that possibility as a matter of law.
Authority:
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 562, 564, 567 fn. 10
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 470
Second Holding:
Although the verdict and jury instructions on the special circumstance found true by the jury showed that two of the three requirements for direct aiding and abetting liability were satisfied, the record of conviction did not show that the final requirement was satisfied and, thus, did not establish direct aiding and abetting liability as a matter of law.
In addition, while the special circumstance finding suggests that the jury found the defendant guilty of murder based on direct aiding and abetting, which remains a valid theory, it is possible that the jury found him guilty based on conspiracy and a natural and probable consequences theory, which is now invalid.
Under the strict test that the Supreme Court has interpreted section 1172.6 to impose, the record of conviction does not conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations that he was convicted of a now-invalid theory of murder, and the trial court should have proceeded beyond the prima facie stage to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether in fact he was convicted based on a now-invalid theory.
Authority:
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 470
Third Holding:
We review trial court orders at the prima facie stage de novo.
Authority:
People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200
Fourth Holding:
in determining whether a prima facie case has been shown, trial courts may examine jury instructions, the verdict, and other parts of the record of conviction to determine whether that record refutes the petition’s allegations. But at the prima facia stage, hearing transcripts may not be used to prove disputed facts. If the record of conviction contains facts refuting the allegations in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner. However, the record of conviction must establish conclusively such facts.
Authority:
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 568
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
Fifth Holding:
To establish liability for murder under the theory of direct aiding and abetting, the prosecution must show that the defendant [1] aided or encouraged the commission of the murder [2] with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and [3] with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating its commission. The trial court’s special circumstance finding established only two of these requirements.
Authority:
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 466