Category Archives: Elements of crime

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Sentencing

Case 001058

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Among many other offenses committed during related incidents over a period of time, the defendant was convicted of two counts of being in possession of an assault weapon and two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. We reverse one of each of those counts.

First Holding:

Possession of a firearm by a felon is a continuing offense. The concept of a continuing offense is well established. Ordinarily, a continuing offense is marked by a continuing duty in the defendant to do an act which he fails to do. The offense continues as long as the duty persists, and there is a failure to perform that duty.

Thus, when the law imposes an affirmative obligation to act, the violation is complete at the first instance the elements are met. It is nevertheless not completed as long as the obligation remains unfulfilled. The crime achieves no finality until such time.

In the case of continuing offenses, only one violation occurs even though the proscribed conduct may extend over an indefinite period. As the evidence does not support any conclusion but continuing possession, one of the defendant’s convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm must be reversed and one of his convictions for possession of an assault weapon must be reversed.

Authority:

People v. Mason (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 355, 365

Second Holding:

It is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate error that justifies reversal of the judgment. To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis that supports the claim of error. We are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply arguments for the litigants.

Authority:

Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609

In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408

United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 [to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis]

Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52

Third Holding:

Cases are not authority for points not considered.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 945, fn. 7

Fourth Holding:

Reversal of the two counts means that the defendant must be resentenced. When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 37, 45-46

Fifth Holding:

One of the defendant’s arguments on a different count is forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court. The parties did not address forfeiture in their appellate briefing, but they had the opportunity to address it, a rule always implicated when an argument is raised for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 679 [The parties need only have been given an opportunity to brief the issue decided by the court, and the fact that a party does not address an issue, mode of analysis, or authority that is raised or fairly included within the issues raised does not implicate the protections of Government Code section 68081.]

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 798, fn. 6.

Sixth Holding:

A failure to object to a jury instruction does not forfeit the issue on appeal if the alleged error concerns elements of the offense, but the forfeited argument here is at least one step removed from an argument about the elements of the crime in question. And the general rule is that an argument not raised in the trial court is forfeited on appeal, including constitutional arguments.

Authority:

People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012

People v. Marchand (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1060-1061 [ruling that an argument under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 was forfeited because it was not raised in the trial court]

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001056

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects a $120 court security fee and a $160 criminal conviction fee, instead of the $40 and $30 ordered by the court in its oral pronouncement. Further, on the attempted murder charge, the abstract must delete the reference to “First Degree,” because attempted murder is not separated into degrees. THe abstract of judgment must be corrected.

Holding:

The abstract of judgment constitutes the commitment and is the order sending the defendant to prison, and the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect; no other warrant or authority is necessary to justify or require its execution. Accuracy is essential in a document that prescribes the execution of sentence and is provided to Criminal Investigation and Identification.

This court has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time.

Authority:

PEN 1213

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-187

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Fines and fees, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001052

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Gary note:  This case had a ton of issues.  The wins consisted of striking two of the four counts of being a felon in possession of ammunition; because he did not waive his presence at the court trial, reversal of the findings on his prior convictions and aggravating circumstance in aggravation made in his absence; remand for a hearing on his strikes that were based on the pre-AB 333 amendments to the criminal gang activity statute; correction of the abstract of judgment that reflected fines and fees that were not orally pronounced; and correction of his credit for time served.  In the course of deciding the case, however, the court announced several principles that I feel are important, even though in this instance they were resolved against the defendant. 

I apologize for the length of the summary.  

First Holding:

In assessing a claim of insufficient evidence, we examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We presume the evidence of each element of the offense was sufficient, and defendant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating otherwise. To meet this burden, defendant must do more than just recite his own evidence or portray the available evidence in a light favorable to him.

We do not reweigh the evidence or revisit credibility issues, but rather presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that could reasonably be deduced from the evidence. We must accept all logical inferences that the jury may have drawn from circumstantial evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.

Authority:

People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1329

People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573-1574

People v. Pham (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 919, 924-925

People v. Lucero (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 370, 411

Second Holding:

It is a firmly entrenched principle of appellate practice that litigants must adhere to the theory on which a case was tried. Stated otherwise, a litigant may not change his or her position on appeal and assert a new theory. To permit this change in strategy would be unfair to the trial court and the opposing litigant. To be sure, we have discretion to consider a new theory on appeal when it is purely a matter of applying the law to undisputed facts.

But the defendant cannot now, for the first time, claim that insufficient evidence supports his convictions based on new evidence and and a new theory. Accordingly, we decline to consider defendant’s new theory on appeal.

Authority:

Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1316

Third Holding:

A trial court must give an instruction on every theory of the case that is supported by substantial evidence. But the court must not give an instruction that is not correct or pertinent, nor is it required to give an instruction that is not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047

People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823

Fourth Holding:

We note that defendant forfeited his challenge to (a particular jury instruction) because he did not raise the same instructional error issue in the trial court as he raises on appeal. We nonetheless address the merits because defendant maintains that (the jury instruction) as given was not a correct statement of the law.

Authority:

People v. Rios (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1139 [Generally, an issue is forfeited on appeal if the defendant failed to make a timely and specific objection on the ground asserted on appeal]

People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 [The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law, or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights]

Fifth Holding:

We review claims of instructional error de novo. We must review the wording of the jury instruction and assess whether it accurately states the law. We must also consider whether a reasonable likelihood exists that the challenged instruction caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution.

The challenged instruction is viewed in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner. There is no error in a trial court’s failing or refusing to instruct on one matter, unless the remaining instructions, considered as a whole, fail to cover the material issues raised at trial.

As long as the trial court has correctly instructed the jury on all matters pertinent to the case, there is no error. We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579

People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 277

People v. Vang (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1129

Sixth Holding:

On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court improperly failed to instruct on a lesser included offense.

Trial courts have a sua sponte duty to instruct juries on all lesser included offenses where there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all the elements of the charged offense are present. Under the substantial evidence standard, the trial court has no obligation to instruct on theories not supported, or only weakly supported by the evidence.

However, instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury. Substantial evidence in this context is evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.

Authority:

People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 155, 162

People v. Reeves (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 14, 51

Seventh Holding:

The defendant cannot be convicted of multiple counts of being a felon in possession of different types of ammunition. Multiple items of contraband that are classified within a single statutory category or subdivision will support only a single violation of a possession statute. This includes possession of different types of ammunition.

There is, however, an exception when contraband is possessed by a defendant at different times or at different locations.

Authority:

In re Carleisha P. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 912, 923

De La Cerda v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 40

People v. Sample (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1253

People v. Von Latta (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 329

Eighth Holding:

Defendant was not present for the bifurcated bench trial on his prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations. The parties agree that this was error because defendant did not expressly waive his right to be present for the bench trial in writing as required by section 977(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 977(b)(1)

Ninth Holding:

A defendant has a right to be present at critical stages of a criminal prosecution, a right protected by both the federal Constitution and the state Constitution. California has also guaranteed the right by statute, under section 977. The defendant may waive that right.

The waiver of a defendant’s right to be present may be in writing and filed with the court or, with the court’s consent, may be entered personally by the defendant or by the defendant’s counsel of record. Although the defendant submitted a writing under which he waived his right to a jury trial on prior convictions and aggravating factors allegations, the waiver extended only to his right to a jury, not to his right to be present.

Authority:

PEN 977

U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amends.

Cal. Const., art. I, secs. 15, 16

Kentucky v. Stincer (1987) 482 U.S. 730, 745

People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 311

Tenth Holding:

Absent a valid waiver, constitutional error concerning a defendant’s right of presence is subject to harmless error review under Chapman. We must therefore assess whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not contribute to the outcome of the proceeding.

Here, defense counsel did not call any witnesses and submitted on the prosecution’s exhibits at the bifurcated trial. Had defendant been present at the trial, he could have assisted in his defense and/or exercised his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf regarding any number of the aggravating factors that were alleged against him.

Thus, we cannot say that the exclusion of defendant at the bifurcated bench trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we will remand the matter for a new bifurcated trial on the prior convictions and aggravating factors.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23

People v. Millsap (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 368, 384

Eleventh Holding:

The trial court found true that defendant had been convicted in 1999 of unlawful possession of a firearm committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Based upon the recent decision in Fletcher, both parties request that the true finding on the prior gang-related enhancement be vacated and that the matter be remanded for a retrial in conformance with the changes to the law on criminal street gangs after AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576

Twelfth Holding:

The Three Strikes law doubles a felony sentence if the defendant has a prior conviction for a serious felony, which includes any felony offense that would also constitute a felony violation of section 186.22. A prior felony firearm conviction constitutes a strike if committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang” pursuant to section 186.22(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1192.7(c)(28)

PEN 667(d)(1), (e)(1)

PEN 1170.12(b)(1)(c)(1)

People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 45

Thirteenth Holding:

AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 186.22 to narrow the definition of benefit to mean to provide a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

This provision applies retroactively to cases that are not final on appeal to determine whether a prior violation of section 186.22 constitutes a strike. With regard to prior convictions that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions under section 1192.7(c)(28). The appropriate remedy is to remand to permit the prosecution the opportunity to establish that the prior conviction constitutes a strike under current law.

Authority:

PEN 186.22(g)

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 586-587, 607-608

Fourteenth Holding:

The trial court did not mention any fines or fees at the sentencing hearing and the minute order is also silent on this subject. However, the abstract of judgment reflects the following fines and fees were imposed: $300 for restitution (sec. 1202.4(b)); $400 for the court security fee (sec. 1465.8); and $300 for the criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373). The $300 parole revocation restitution fine (sec. 1202.45) was conditionally suspended.

Rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement. Entering the judgment in the minutes being a clerical function, a discrepancy between the judgment as orally pronounced and as entered in the minutes is presumably the result of clerical error. Nor is the abstract of judgment controlling. The abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction. By its very nature, definition and terms it cannot add to or modify the judgment which it purports to digest or summarize.


If there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minutes or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.

Authority:

PEN 1207

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186

Fifteenth Holding:

The trial court did not orally impose restitution fines or fees, nor were any included in the Minute Order from the sentencing hearing. The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose the fines or fees.

Because the restitution fine and matching parole revocation fine are discretionary given the court’s ability to not impose them if it makes certain findings on the record, the People forfeited the imposition of the fines by not objecting. Accordingly, we decline the People’s request for a remand on the restitution fines and instead, direct those fines to be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

Sixteenth Holding:

However, the same is not true for the two mandatory ancillary costs including the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment. Indeed, the trial court was required to impose these fees but did not do so, nor did it state any reasons for declining to do so.

Accordingly, on remand, the trial court is directed to either impose these fees or state its reasons for declining to do so

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App5th 963, 967

Seventeenth Holding:

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the credit for time served. Although there was no oral pronouncement of credit for time served at the sentencing hearing, the probation officer’s report shows that she calculated the total credit for time served based on defendant’s presentencing time in jail. We agree with the parties that this is a miscalculation, and any miscalculation of credits results in an unauthorized sentence, which may be corrected upon discovery.

Credits for presentence custody are calculated from the day of arrest through the day of sentencing. The defendant was sentenced 11 days later than reported by the probation officer. Accordingly, the correct number of actual days of presentencing time served is (a number greater than 900 days).

Because he was convicted of violent felonies, the defendant cannot earn conduct credit in excess of 15%.

Authority:

PEN 2933.1

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647

People v. Ramos (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 810, 816 [explaining proper method of calculation for conduct credits under section 2933.1]

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation, Vicarious liability

Case 001049

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage. The jury instructions on aiding and abetting, implied malice, and lying-in-wait murder allowed for the jury to convict him of murder under a theory by which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in the crime.

First Holding:

SB 1437 became effective on 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.

It amended section 188, which defines malice, and section 189, which defines the degrees of murder to address felony-murder liability, and it added what is now section 1172.6, which provides a procedure by which those convicted of murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions.

Accordingly, section 188 now provides that, except as stated in section 189(e), in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. The change reflects the Legislature’s intent that a person’s culpability for murder must be premised upon that person’s own actions and subjective mens rea.

Additionally, section 189 previously stated that all murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, various specified crimes, is murder of the first degree. SB 1437 amended section 189 to add subdivision (e), which provides that a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the enumerated feloines in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if:

(1) The person was the actual killer; or

(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; or

(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).

Authority:

PEN 188

PEN 189

Second Holding:

Section 1172.6 sets forth procedures on how the court is consider the petitions.

There is a first stage review to determine whether the petition states fact that demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to relief. The court is not permitted to do fact-finding at that stage, but it may review certain portions of the record to determine whether the record establishes that the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

If a prima facie case appears from the petition, the court must then hold an evidentiary hearing, at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty under current law

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972

Third Holding:

In SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended the language of section 1172.6 to expand the scope of the petitioning procedure, in part, by expressly permitting persons convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition for relief.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6

Fourth Holding:

There has been a split of authority on whether a defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 if the defendant could have raised the the instructional argument in a prior appeal. (Gary note: For the main part, the discussions in the split cases were over the impact of various jury instructions that were given in the original trials, and whether the failure to raise those arguments gave rise to issue preclusion in determining the applicability of section 1172.6. If you are interested in reading the development and evolution of those cases, Lopez might be a good read.)

Lopez resolved the dispute by holding that a defendant is not barred by issue preclusion. The mere fact that a petitioner could have raised an analogous … claim of instructional error at trial or in his original appeal does not render him categorically ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The primary and overarching purpose of SB 1437’s scheme is to identify and to afford resentencing relief, in qualifying cases, to those who may have been convicted under imputed-malice murder theories.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658, 661

Fifth Holding:

Resentencing courts should not ignore potentially ambiguous or even openly flawed instructions when evaluating a petitioner’s prima facie allegations merely because these flaws were not raised in a prior appeal. Rather, the section 1172.6 resentencing court should address on the merits the alleged flaws or ambiguities in instructions that may have resulted in conviction under now invalid theories of imputed malice.

After considering Lopez, we now agree with the defendant that the record here does not establish he is categorically ineligible for relief. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for recall and resentencing at the prima facie stage and remand for the court to issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing pursuant to section 1172.6(d).

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 658, 668

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001047

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially applied the wrong standard when it denied the defendant’s motion for recall of his sentence under section 1172.6. We accordingly reverse the order denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing and remand for a new evidentiary hearing.

First Holding:

To the end of ensuring a person’s sentence is commensurate with the person’s individual criminal culpability, SB 1437 (effective January 1, 2019) limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule, eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and eliminated convictions for murder based on a theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.

SB 1437 added section 189(e) (limiting application of the felony-murder rule) and section 188(a)(3) (to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought, and malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime). Under SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, these ameliorative changes to the law expressly apply to attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 986

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843

Second Holding:

SB 1437 also created a procedure, under section 1172.6, for a person convicted of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter under the former law to be resentenced if the person could no longer be convicted of those crimes under the current law.

A defendant commences that procedure by filing a petition containing a declaration that, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of the changes to section 188 or 189 made by SB 1437.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)(3)

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 847

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

Third Holding:

At the prima facie stage, the trial court takes as true the petitioner’s factual allegations and assesses whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if those allegations were proved. In determining whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief, the trial court may look at the record of conviction, including jury instructions, verdicts and closing argument, to determine readily ascertainable facts such as the crime of conviction.

At the prima facie stage, the trial court does not engage in factfinding that involves the weighing of evidence or exercise of discretion. If a petition establishes a prima facie case for relief, the trial court must appoint counsel if requested, issue an order to show cause, and hold an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(b)(3), (c), and (d)(1)

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 971-972

People v. Duchine (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 798, 815

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 56

Fourth Holding:

A defendant is liable as a direct aider and abettor of express malice murder if the defendant aided or encouraged the murder with knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the murder’s commission.

Authority:

In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 579

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1122 [direct aiding and abetting is based on participants’ combined actus reus and aider and abettor’s own mens rea]

Fifth Holding:

In contrast, a defendant is liable as a direct aider and abettor of implied malice murder if the defendant, by words or conduct, aids the commission of a life-endangering act, not the act’s result. The direct aider and abettor must know that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intend to aid the perpetrator in committing the act, know that the act is dangerous to human life, and act in conscious disregard to human life.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

Sixth Holding:

Section 1172.6(d)(3) required the trial court to act as an independent factfinder––resolving the disputed facts and determining for itself, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the defendant was guilty of murder under current law—not to ask whether a jury could or would convict him if the matter were retried. The trial court’s statements show it did not perform that role here.

(Gary note: The appellate court then recited comments by the trial court that reflected the trial court’s apparent belief that its role was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding. The crux of section 1172.6(d)(3) is that the judge reviewing the section 1172.6 petition must determine whether he or she is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence shows that the defendant IS guilty (not “could be found guilty”) of murder under the current elements.)

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(d)(3)

Seventh Holding:

The trial court’s failure to perform the factfinding section 1172.6(d)(3) requires is subject to harmless error review. Reversal is required if it is reasonably probable Lopez would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of the error. We cannot conclude that the error was not prejudicial. The trial court’s order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is reversed and the matter is remanded for a new evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d)

(Gary note: In the course of its discussion on whether the error was prejudicial, the appellate court discussed the various theories potentially arguable as a theory under which the defendant could be guilty of murder as currently defined. It concluded that it is impossible to determine from the trial court’s comments the findings of fact that would support either theory. It stressed that, for the trial court to deny the defendant’s petition for recall, the trial court was required to find facts that led it to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of murder under current law. And it did not do that factfinding.)

Authority:

People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706, 715–716

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836