People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798

Background

In 1986 Duchine participated in a robbery with Willie Johnson; Johnson fatally shot Mrs. Womble and shot Angela Womble; Duchine surrendered and was convicted of first‑degree murder in 1987 (general jury verdict; appellate decision noted the conviction may have rested on felony‑murder or aiding/abetting theories).
Duchine consistently maintained he was not the actual killer and claimed duress/fear of Johnson; trial evidence showed Duchine carried a rifle, retrieved money, and at one point both men pointed guns at Angela.
After S.B. 1437 (amending Penal Code §§ 188, 189) and creation of Penal Code § 1170.95, Duchine filed a 2019 petition seeking resentencing, asserting he was convicted under a now‑invalid felony‑murder theory and lacked the intent to kill or to aid the killer.
The district attorney opposed, arguing Duchine was an aider/abetter or a major participant who acted with reckless indifference (the § 189(e)(3) pathway remaining valid under S.B. 1437).
The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, finding the record showed a reasonable trier of fact could convict Duchine under the major‑participant/reckless‑indifference theory; the court made factual findings based on the record.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court improperly engaged in factfinding at the prima facie stage and must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing where the prosecution bears the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt burden to prove ineligibility.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Duchine’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could deny a §1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage by finding substantial evidence in the record that petitioner could be guilty under a valid theory (major participant + reckless indifference).	The record shows substantial evidence establishing Duchine was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference, so petition should be denied.	Prima facie review is limited; petitioner need only make a minimal showing and the court should not resolve disputed factual issues at this stage.	Court held the trial court erred: it answered the wrong question by applying a substantial‑evidence/weighting analysis at prima facie rather than issuing an order to show cause.
Whether the trial court may engage in credibility findings or weighing of evidence at the prima facie stage rather than reserving those determinations for an evidentiary hearing under §1170.95(d).	Trial court can consider the record and deny petitions when the record conclusively refutes eligibility.	Trial court must accept petitioner’s allegations unless the record conclusively refutes them; factual disputes should be resolved only after an order to show cause and hearing.	Court held trial court improperly engaged in judicial factfinding at the prima facie stage; where the record is not dispositive, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (California Supreme Court) (natural and probable consequences cannot extend to first‑degree premeditated murder)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (California Supreme Court) (explains S.B. 1437 reforms and §1170.95 remedy)
People v. Anthony, 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describes §1170.95 petition, prima facie review, and hearing procedures)
People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App.) (holds trial courts should not resolve credibility/weight‑of‑evidence issues at prima facie stage)
People v. Garcia, 57 Cal.App.5th 100 (Cal. Ct. App.) (advances a contrary substantial‑evidence approach to prima facie review)
People v. Duke, 55 Cal.App.5th 113 (Cal. Ct. App.) (addresses prosecution’s burden at the §1170.95 hearing)
People v. Rodriguez, 58 Cal.App.5th 227 (Cal. Ct. App.) (concludes prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of murder under current law to deny relief)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. Supreme Court) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard referenced for jury instruction errors)