People v. Berardi CA4/1, D078050

In 2008 Berardi was charged with conspiracy to commit murder and first‑degree murder; a jury convicted him of both and found gun‑related enhancements true; this court affirmed the conviction in 2012.
Evidence at trial showed Berardi arranged an alleged marijuana meeting with victim Marcus Kegler but did not attend; co‑defendant Daniel May met Kegler and fatally shot him.
Anna Tong testified she heard Berardi say May would shoot Kegler and that Berardi planned to use receipts and witnesses to establish an alibi; May later confessed and did a video reenactment.
In June 2019 Berardi petitioned under Penal Code §1170.95 (SB 1437) seeking resentencing, but left unchecked the petition boxes about intent and major participant/reckless indifference.
The trial court denied the §1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause, concluding the record of conviction established Berardi was ineligible because the jury necessarily found he conspired to commit first‑degree murder (i.e., had intent to kill and assisted May).
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the court properly relied on the record of conviction and that the jury was not instructed under a natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory.

Issue	People’s Argument	Berardi’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by relying on the record of conviction at the prima facie (§1170.95) stage	Trial court may consider the record of conviction to determine eligibility; that record shows Berardi was a conspirator who intended the killing	Court should not have relied on the record to resolve eligibility at prima facie	Held: No error; Lewis permits use of the record to distinguish meritless petitions and the record establishes ineligibility
Whether the court should have issued an OSC because the jury might have convicted under a natural and probable consequences theory	Record and jury instructions show conspiracy conviction required premeditation/intent to kill, so natural‑and‑probable‑consequences does not apply	Possibility existed that jury convicted on natural and probable consequences, so an OSC was required	Held: No OSC required; the jury was instructed only as to conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder, so §1170.95 relief is unavailable

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (record of conviction can inform the prima facie §1170.95 inquiry)
People v. Cortez, 18 Cal.4th 1223 (conspiracy to commit murder requires premeditation/deliberation)
People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (trial court may determine ineligibility as matter of law from record of conviction)
People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (court need not credit petition assertions that are legally untrue)
People v. Law, 48 Cal.App.5th 811 (statutory construction and review standards applicable to §1170.95)