Error and/or relief
The court erred by engaging in factfinding at the prima facie stage of the proceedings on the defendant motion to vacate his manslaughter conviction under section 1172.6.
First Holding:
Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 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.
SB 1437 also created a procedural mechanism in section 1172.6 for those convicted under the former law to seek retroactive relief under the law as amended.
SB 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) later expanded the statute to apply to attempted murder under the natural and probable consequence doctrine and manslaughter.
Authority:
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959
Second Holding:
Section 1172.6(a) applies to those convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime or a person convicted of attempted murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. To be eligible for relief, the petitioner must make a prima facie showing that he could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder under changes to these theories of murder liability made effective on January 1, 2019, by SB 1437.
If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing where the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could still be convicted of murder under current law.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
Third Holding:
At the prima facie stage, the court may deny a resentencing petition only if the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. That is, the petition and the record of conviction must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief. This is a pure question of law we review de novo.
Authority:
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708
People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14
Fourth Holding:
While the trial court may look to the record of conviction after appointing defense counsel, the prima facie inquiry is limited. 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 those factual allegations were proved. If so, the court must issue an order to show cause.
At that early stage, the trial court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds or engage in factfinding that involves the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion. But if the record contains facts refuting the allegations in the petition, then the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.
(Gary note: For the most part, the balance of the opinion discusses facts specific to this case to show that the preliminary examination, the defendant’s admission that he personally used a firearm, and that he admitted that manslaughter is a serious felony did not establish that the defendant was the actual killer. For the trial court to have reached a conclusion that the defendant was the actual killer, it would have had to engage in factfinding that is not permitted at the prima facie stage. The court should have issued an order to show cause and held and evidentiary hearing, which is what the appellate court remanded the matter for.)
Authority:
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 971-972
People v. Jones (2005) 30 Cal. 4th 1084, 1120 [the finding of personal use does not in itself prove defendant was the actual killer]