People v. Barragan CA2/4
B304388
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Adrian Barragan (non-shooter) and his cousin Daniel, both gang members, were tried for the drive-by killing of Frank Ibarra; Daniel was the shooter and Barragan drove the car.
- Jury convicted Barragan of first-degree murder and found true a gang-related special circumstance; he was sentenced to life without parole plus a firearm enhancement.
- The jury was instructed on three alternative theories of first-degree murder: premeditated murder, drive-by murder, and a modified felony-murder instruction for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle; aiding-and-abetting instructions were given.
- In 2019 Barragan petitioned under Penal Code §1170.95 (S.B. 1437 resentencing) and requested appointed counsel; the trial court summarily denied the petition before appointing counsel, relying on the record to find he acted with intent to kill and was a major participant.
- On appeal the court agreed the trial court erred to the extent it engaged in record factfinding without briefing, but held Barragan was ineligible for §1170.95 relief as a matter of law because all three murder theories required that an aider-and-abettor share the shooter’s intent to kill.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Barragan’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by summarily denying §1170.95 petition without appointing counsel and receiving briefing | Subdivision (c) permits summary denial when record conclusively refutes petition; no appointment or briefing required if ineligibility established as matter of law | Court must appoint counsel and accept briefing before denial when counsel requested | Denial without counsel was procedurally contestable, but here summary denial was upheld because the record conclusively established ineligibility as a matter of law |
| Whether the court erred by weighing facts in record to find ineligibility | Court may compare petition allegations against record; if record conclusively refutes claims, summary denial is appropriate | Court impermissibly engaged in factfinding at prima facie stage | Although factfinding at that stage was erroneous in principle, the appellate court concluded the record conclusively showed ineligibility, so denial stands |
| Whether the modified CALJIC No. 8.21 (drive-by/felony-murder clause) permitted conviction of an aider-and-abettor without a finding of intent to kill | Instruction, read with aiding-and-abetting instructions, required the aider to share the perpetrator’s specific intent to inflict death | The clause’s wording ("intentional, unintentional or accidental") renders it ambiguous as to whose mental state controls, so aider need not have intended to kill | Court held that read with aiding-and-abetting instructions, the clause required the aider to know and share the shooter’s intent to kill, so no ambiguity relieved Barragan of intent requirement |
| Whether any of the three theories remain valid after S.B. 1437 such that Barragan is ineligible for relief | Premeditated murder, drive-by murder, and the modified drive-by/felony-murder all require specific intent to kill; S.B. 1437 excludes only felony-murder/natural-and-probable-consequences liability that lacks intent or major-participant/reckless-indifference elements | Barragan argued one theory might have allowed conviction without intent, making him eligible for §1170.95 relief | Court held all three theories required intent to kill for an aider-and-abettor; therefore Barragan is ineligible for §1170.95 relief as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (two-step prima facie review under §1170.95)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (aider-and-abettor must share perpetrator’s specific intent)
- People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 (defendant must know full extent of perpetrator’s criminal purpose to be an aider-and-abettor)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (principles on shared intent for aider-and-abettor)
- People v. Chavez, 118 Cal.App.4th 379 (drive-by murder clause requires intent to inflict death)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (S.B. 1437 limited imputation of malice; scope of §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (appellate courts may affirm on any correct legal theory supported by the record)