Error and/or relief
The court erred in denying at the prima facie stage the defendant’s 1172.6 petition for recall of his sentence.
First Holding:
In 2018, the Legislature amended the law of homicide, eliminating several theories of liability based on imputed malice. It has also offered relief to those convicted under certain homicide theories, such as murder or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, whose convictions are now tainted. Under what is now section 1172.6, it provided a mechanism for individuals previously convicted of murder to show their entitlement to retroactive relief under the legislative changes.
Pertinent to this case, SB 1437 added section 189(e), providing felony-murder liability only if the defendant:
(1) was the actual killer;
(2) was not the actual killer but, with intent to kill, aided, abetted, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of first degree murder; or
(3) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6(a)
People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 556
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957
Second Holding:
SB 775 expanded eligibility to individuals convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Authority:
People v. Muhammad (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 268, 275
Third Holding:
A section 1172.6 petition may be filed by a person 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, attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter when certain specified conditions apply.
An individual convicted under prior law may petition to vacate the conviction and be resentenced on any remaining counts, if he or she could not now be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of the changes made by SB 1437.
Upon receipt of a petition containing all required information, the trial court must appoint counsel to represent the petitioner, if requested. The trial court must also set a briefing schedule and hold a prima facie hearing. If the trial court determines that petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief, it must issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708-709
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959-960
Fourth Holding:
The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6(c) is limited. The court takes 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. If so, the court must issue an order to show cause. Acourt should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.
However, 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.
Authority:
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971
Fifth Holding:
Whether the record of conviction shows that petitioner is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law is a legal question we review de novo.
(Gary note: The court then continued by determining that the record the trial court was permitted to review at the prima facie stage did not necessarily reflect that the defendant was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 and remanded to the trial court to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing.)
Authority:
People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14