People v. Camerano CA2/2, B307107

Background

In June 1998, Raymond Camerano and others drove through rival-gang territory; shots were fired from their car and Randolph Cisneros (a deaf-mute) was killed by gunfire consistent with being fired from the vehicle.
Camerano was charged with first-degree murder, a special circumstance that the killing was committed by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle with intent to kill, and a firearm enhancement; a jury convicted and found the special circumstance and enhancement true.
He was sentenced to life without parole plus one year; his direct appeal was affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
In 2019 Camerano sought postconviction relief under Penal Code §1170.95 (as amended by SB 1437), arguing his conviction rested on theories (natural and probable consequences) that are no longer valid for first-degree murder liability.
The trial court denied the §1170.95 petition, concluding the record conclusively showed the jury found Camerano was either the actual killer or directly aided and abetted with intent to kill, rendering him ineligible for relief; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner is eligible for relief under §1170.95 when the record shows the jury found a special circumstance based on a vehicle discharge	The record (special-circumstance jury instruction and true finding) shows the jury necessarily found Camerano was the actual killer or a direct aider/abettor with intent to kill, so §1170.95 does not apply	The record does not conclusively show the jury rejected the natural-and-probable-consequences theory; thus Camerano may be eligible for relief	Affirmed: record conclusively shows conviction rested on theories (actual killer or direct aider with intent) outside §1170.95 relief, so summary denial was proper
Whether the jury could have relied on the natural-and-probable-consequences theory despite instruction language	People: jury was not instructed on natural-and-probable-consequences for first-degree murder; special-circumstance instruction required finding intent to kill	Camerano: use of similar language in malice definition could mean jury relied on abrogated doctrine	Held: The malice instruction's language is distinct and does not present the natural-and-probable-consequences aiding-and-abetting theory; jury was not instructed on that doctrine
Whether Wende review was required on appeal from denial of §1170.95 relief	People: Wende does not apply to appeals from postconviction orders denying §1170.95 relief	Camerano: appointed counsel filed a Wende-type brief; defendant submitted a supplemental brief	Held: Wende procedure not required for this postconviction appeal, but the court considered defendant's supplemental brief on the merits

Key Cases Cited

People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (aiders-and-abettors cannot be convicted of premeditated first-degree murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (discussing SB 1437 and related changes to murder liability)
People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedure for appointed-counsel briefing on direct appeals)
People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (summary denial of §1170.95 petition appropriate when record conclusively shows ineligibility)
People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (same; conviction based on actual killer or direct aider is outside §1170.95)
People v. Jones, 57 Cal.4th 899 (discussion of malice instruction language contrasted with natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine)