People v. Carter CA3, C092181A

Defendant Frederick Carter was charged with and convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder and a true finding that he personally used a firearm; he was sentenced to 25 years to life plus 10 years.
The killing involved Lofton being shot multiple times by Carter while already wounded; Carter claimed mental‑health issues but acted alone.
Carter filed a Penal Code § 1170.95 petition asserting the prosecution proceeded under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and that, under amendments from Senate Bill 1437, he could not now be convicted of first or second degree murder.
The superior court appointed counsel, ordered briefing, reviewed the record of conviction (including this court’s prior opinion, the information, and the abstract of judgment), and summarily denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, concluding Carter was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for § 1170.95 relief.
On appeal, the court applied the California Supreme Court’s framework in People v. Lewis regarding the § 1170.95 prima facie process and concluded the superior court properly relied on the record after appointment of counsel to determine Carter’s ineligibility as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying the § 1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause and by relying on the record of conviction including the appellate opinion	Court did not err; it appointed counsel and properly reviewed the record after briefing in accordance with Lewis	Court erred by resolving factual issues and credibility without issuing an order to show cause	Held: No error; appointment of counsel occurred and the court permissibly considered the record post‑briefing to reach a legal determination of ineligibility
Whether Carter is eligible for relief under § 1170.95 given Senate Bill 1437 changes (felony‑murder and natural and probable consequences limits)	N/A (People argued Carter was ineligible)	Carter claimed conviction was obtained under theories covered by § 1170.95 and he could not now be convicted under current law	Held: Ineligible as a matter of law — record shows he was the actual killer, not convicted as an accomplice or under felony‑murder/natural and probable consequences theories

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (establishes appointment of counsel upon filing a facially sufficient § 1170.95 petition and limits when the record of conviction may be considered)
People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (trial court may not engage in factfinding at the § 1170.95 prima facie stage; court need not credit legally contradicted assertions)
People v. Edwards, 48 Cal.App.5th 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (petitioners must have been charged/convicted under felony‑murder or natural and probable consequences to be eligible)
People v. Tarkington, 49 Cal.App.5th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses record‑based determinations regarding whether a defendant was the actual killer)
People v. Cornelius, 44 Cal.App.5th 54 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (holding that a conviction and record may establish a petitioner was the actual killer and thus ineligible for § 1170.95 relief)