History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Coley CA1/5
77 Cal.App.5th 539
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2022
Read the full case

Background

  • On Jan. 28, 2009 a car carrying Coley, Peters, Eads and Soto drove by two pedestrians; Hernandez was fatally shot and Hussein survived. Prosecution’s theory: Peters was shooter, Coley the driver/aider‑and‑abettor; Eads and Soto testified for the People.
  • Jury was instructed on first‑ and second‑degree murder and attempted murder, and on direct aiding‑and‑abetting (CALCRIM 400/401); jurors were not instructed on felony‑murder or the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences (NPC) doctrine.
  • Jury convicted Coley of second‑degree murder and attempted murder (no premeditation) and found gang and firearm enhancements true; Coley was sentenced to an aggregate 40 years‑to‑life.
  • Coley petitioned under Penal Code §1170.95 seeking resentencing on murder and attempted murder based on legislative changes (SB 1437) that narrowed accomplice liability; trial court denied the petition, concluding the attempted murder conviction showed express malice (intent to kill).
  • After the appeal, the Supreme Court directed reconsideration in light of People v. Lewis and Legislature’s SB 775 (which (1) confirms appointment of counsel on facially sufficient §1170.95 petitions, (2) expands §1170.95 eligibility language, and (3) adds procedural requirements), but the Court of Appeal again affirmed denial.

Issues

Issue People’s Argument Coley’s Argument Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying a §1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause/hearing and by considering the record of conviction at the prima facie stage Court may consider the record; the record shows Coley acted with intent to kill (or was a major participant with reckless indifference), so ineligible A facially sufficient petition and appointment of counsel required issuance of an order to show cause; court should not resolve credibility by relying on the record No error: under People v. Lewis the court may consider the record at prima facie stage; the attempted murder conviction showed express malice, so denial was proper and any additional hearing would not have changed outcome
Whether §1170.95 (including SB 775) requires resentencing of Coley’s attempted murder conviction SB 775 expands §1170.95 to address attempted murder under the NPC doctrine, but it does not cover attempted murder where conviction was by direct aiding‑and‑abetting with intent to kill SB 775 covers attempted murder generally and therefore entitles Coley to resentencing §1170.95 applies only to attempted murder under the NPC theory; here jury was instructed on direct aiding‑and‑abetting and convicted Coley of attempted murder (requiring intent to kill), so he is ineligible
Whether Coley was entitled to present new evidence at an evidentiary hearing under §1170.95(d)(3) The court did not improperly prevent presentation of new evidence; petitioners cannot relitigate matters already decided Coley had a statutory right to present new evidence and the denial foreclosed that right No reversible error: petitioner did not identify what new evidence would have been presented and §1170.95 is not a vehicle to relitigate matters resolved by the record of conviction

Key Cases Cited

  • 11 Cal.5th 952 (People v. Lewis) (trial courts may consider the record at the prima facie stage; counsel appointed on facially sufficient §1170.95 petitions)
  • 10 Cal.5th 830 (People v. Gentile) (elimination of the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine as a basis for murder)
  • 73 Cal.App.5th 972 (People v. Langi) (aiding‑and‑abetting implied‑malice murder may permit imputation of malice based on participation)
  • 31 Cal.4th 613 (People v. Lee) (attempted murder requires specific intent to kill)
  • 37 Cal.4th 1 (People v. Moon) (attempted murder conviction indicates express malice when no justification/excuse is shown)
  • 37 Cal.4th 733 (People v. Smith) (same principle regarding intent and express malice)
  • 73 Cal.App.5th 429 (People v. Harrison) (standard of de novo review for prima facie §1170.95 determinations)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Coley CA1/5
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Mar 23, 2022
Citation: 77 Cal.App.5th 539
Docket Number: A159927A
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.