People v. Baca CA3, C092948

Pedro William Baca was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder, attempted murder, and assault; jury found true personal‑discharge enhancements under Penal Code §12022.53(d) for both the murder and attempted murder.
The only witness who testified to the shooting (J.M.) said he saw Baca with a revolver and shoot; appellate opinion previously affirmed the convictions.
Baca filed a postjudgment petition under Penal Code §1170.95 (as amended by Senate Bill 1437) seeking resentencing; the trial court appointed counsel and reviewed briefing.
The trial court denied the §1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage, reasoning the §12022.53(d) true findings showed the jury concluded Baca was the actual shooter and did not rely on the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory.
Senate Bill 775 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) later amended §1170.95 to expressly allow certain attempted‑murder applicants to seek relief, but the trial court declined to reach that question after finding ineligibility based on the enhancement findings.
On appeal, the Third District affirmed, holding the enhancement findings implicitly established Baca as the actual shooter and therefore ineligible for §1170.95 relief.

Issue	People’s Argument	Baca’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied a §1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage by relying on the record of conviction (the jury’s §12022.53(d) true findings).	The §12022.53(d) true findings establish Baca was the actual shooter, so the jury did not convict under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory; Baca is ineligible for §1170.95 relief.	The enhancement instruction does not require malice or intent to kill, so the true findings cannot conclusively show the jury rejected a natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory; thus the petition should have survived prima facie review.	Affirmed. The court held the enhancement findings implicitly showed Baca was the actual shooter, precluding a showing that he was convicted under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine.
Whether changes in law (including Senate Bill 775 expanding §1170.95 to some attempted murder convictions) required a different result.	Not dispositive here because the jury findings establish actual‑shooter liability.	SB775 makes attempted‑murder relief available to some petitioners, so the court should consider eligibility on that basis.	Court did not resolve SB775’s applicability because the enhancement findings independently foreclosed relief.

People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (explaining SB 1437 eliminated natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability for murder)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (describing the two‑step §1170.95 prima facie and post‑counsel inquiry standard)
People v. Offley, 48 Cal.App.5th 588 (discussing limits of §12022.53(d) findings in proving malice)
People v. Cornelius, 44 Cal.App.5th 54 (holding actual‑killer findings can render a petitioner ineligible for §1170.95 relief)
People v. Miranda, 192 Cal.App.4th 398 (discussing use of natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine for attempted murder)