People v. Bland CA2/2, B341328

James Bland was convicted of first-degree murder in 2005 and sentenced to 50 years to life, with firearm and gang enhancements.
After his conviction, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1437 (effective 2019), amending the felony murder rule and natural and probable consequences doctrine, and allowing retroactive relief under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95).
Bland filed two petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6, arguing he could not be convicted under new law; both petitions were summarily denied without appointment of counsel.
In prior appellate proceedings, the summary denial was found harmless due to jury instructions, but later law clarified procedures regarding prima facie showings and the appointment of counsel under section 1172.6.
The trial court denied Bland’s second petition on res judicata grounds, stating it was identical to his first petition, again without appointing counsel, despite Bland’s request and statutory requirements.

Issue	People’s Argument	Bland’s Argument	Held
Was Bland entitled to appointment of counsel for his second section 1172.6 petition?	No, because the issue had already been decided and the second petition was identical (res judicata).	Yes, because the law required appointment if facially sufficient and this was not previously done.	Yes, the court must appoint counsel if requested and the petition is facially sufficient.
Can a second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 be categorically barred by a prior denial?	Yes, res judicata applies to bar successive petitions raising the same issues.	No, the statute does not bar successive petitions and res judicata does not apply if there was no opportunity to fully litigate with counsel.	No, a prior denial is not a categorical bar, especially if the petitioner was not aided by counsel.
Was summary denial of Bland’s second petition proper under section 1172.6 after legal amendments?	Yes, summary denial was justified due to previous identical petition and outcome.	No, statutory amendments post-Senate Bill 775 required appointment of counsel and proper briefing before summary denial.	No, summary denial without appointment of counsel was error under current law.
Did the trial court properly follow statutory procedures under section 1172.6?	Yes, by denying a repetitive petition.	No, by failing to appoint counsel and follow the procedures.	No, the trial court erred; case reversed and remanded for compliance.

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (sets procedures for prima facie determination and appointment of counsel under section 1172.6)
People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (affirms low threshold for prima facie showing in section 1172.6 petitions)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (addresses application of Senate Bill 1437 to murder convictions)