People v. Barnett CA4/3
G059192
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- In 2008 a jury convicted Michael Barnett of second-degree murder (count 1), two counts of attempted murder (counts 2–3), conspiracy to commit murder (count 4), and shooting at an inhabited dwelling (count 5); firearm and gang enhancements were found. He was sentenced to an aggregate indeterminate term of 101 years to life.
- In 2019 Barnett petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code §1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437), arguing his murder conviction rested on felony-murder or the natural and probable consequences theory.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition, concluding Barnett was ineligible as a matter of law because the jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit murder, an offense that required specific intent to kill under CALCRIM No. 563.
- The jury had been instructed on alternative theories, including aiding and abetting and the natural and probable consequences doctrine (CALCRIM Nos. 403 and 417), but also on conspiracy which required intent to kill.
- Barnett contended the conspiracy targeted rival gang members (not the actual victims) and that the murder conviction could have been based on a natural and probable consequences theory; the court and appellate panel rejected this and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conspiracy-to-murder conviction bars §1170.95 relief for a murder conviction | Conspiracy conviction required specific intent to kill, so petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law | Conspiracy targeted rival gang members, not the actual victims; murder could have been based on natural and probable consequences | Conspiracy conviction required intent to kill; thus Barnett is ineligible for §1170.95 relief as a matter of law |
| Whether attempted murder convictions are eligible for §1170.95 relief | Attempted murder is not covered by SB 1437 and §1170.95 | Barnett argued generally about theories but did not overcome precedent | Attempted murder convictions are not eligible for relief under §1170.95 |
| Whether CALCRIM Nos. 403 and 417 (natural and probable consequences) permitted a murder conviction independent of the conspiracy finding | Even with such instructions, the conspiracy verdict shows the jury found intent to kill | Instructions allowed a natural and probable consequences theory for murder | Instructions taken in context show the jury necessarily found intent to kill; natural and probable consequences theory did not control the murder verdict |
| Whether intent to kill directed at rival gang members can apply to accidental victims (transferred intent) | Intent to kill in furtherance of the conspiracy transfers to actual victim | Barnett argued he only intended to kill rivals, not the victims | Transferred intent applies; intent to kill rival gang members covers the actual victims under conspiracy theory |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 57 Cal.4th 250 (specific intent required for conspiracy conviction)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (transferred intent principle applies)
- People v. Dennis, 47 Cal.App.5th 838 (attempted murder not eligible for §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (trial court may rely on record of conviction at prima facie stage)
- People v. Martinez, 31 Cal.App.5th 719 (describing persons eligible to seek relief under §1170.95)