97 Cal.App.5th 389
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- After a gang member was shot, Allen drove three associates into rival territory; his accomplices exited and shot two men, killing Darnell Jackson and wounding Jeremy Owens.
- Allen was tried for Jackson’s murder and Owens’s attempted murder, charged as either an aider and abettor or a coconspirator.
- The jury was instructed on aiding and abetting (CALCRIM 400/401) and conspiracy (CALCRIM 416/417); the court did not give felony‑murder or the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences accomplice instruction (CALCRIM 403 / 540A‑C).
- The jury convicted Allen of first‑degree murder and attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder; the convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Allen petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95). The prosecutor opposed, arguing the record showed no theory eliminated by SB 1437; the trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the instructions required the jury to find Allen had intent to kill (via direct aiding/abetting or conspiracy), making him ineligible for § 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen’s § 1172.6 petition was properly denied at the prima facie stage because the record shows no invalid theory of liability affected by SB 1437 | The People: jury was not instructed on felony murder or the invalid natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory; convictions rested on theories still valid post‑SB 1437 | Allen: jury could have convicted on now‑invalid doctrines that imputed malice, so prima facie relief should proceed | Denied: record shows convictions were based on aiding/abetting or conspiracy, each requiring intent to kill, so § 1172.6 relief was unavailable as a matter of law |
| Whether conspiracy instructions permitted conviction without intent to kill a human being | People: Conspiracy instructions required intent to agree to commit murder (i.e., intent to kill) | Allen: Instructions did not require agreement to kill Jackson or Owens specifically, so conspiracy could be satisfied without intent to kill these victims | Held for People: intent to kill need not target a specific person; conspiracy to commit murder requires intent to kill a human being, which the instructions demanded |
| Whether it was reasonably likely the jury imputed malice to Allen for Owens’s attempted murder | People: No — jury would have had to make multiple speculative findings to impute coconspirators’ specific intent to Allen | Allen: Possible that jury imputed coconspirators’ intent to kill to Allen, making him eligible | Held for People: not reasonably likely; record/instructions provide no basis jury adopted that theory |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (describing prima facie stage and record‑of‑conviction reliance)
- People v. Williams, 86 Cal.App.5th 1244 (de novo review of prima facie determination)
- People v. Swain, 12 Cal.4th 593 (conspiracy is a specific‑intent crime requiring intent to commit the target offense)
- People v. Beck, 8 Cal.5th 548 (conspiracy to commit murder may not be based on implied malice)
- People v. Whitson, 79 Cal.App.5th 22 (analysis of conspiracy instruction omissions relevant to § 1172.6 eligibility)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (limitations on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability for murder)
- People v. Stone, 46 Cal.4th 131 (intent to kill need not be directed at a specific person)
- In re Brigham, 3 Cal.App.5th 318 (distinguishing cases where natural‑and‑probable‑consequences instruction could lead to invalid first‑degree murder verdicts)
- People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (petitioner ineligible where jury not instructed on doctrines affected by SB 1437)
- People v. Estrada, 77 Cal.App.5th 941 (reasonable‑likelihood test in assessing jury instruction impact at prima facie stage)