77 Cal.App.5th 941
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2010 a jury convicted Obed Estrada of first-degree murder with a gang enhancement; he was sentenced to 50 years to life and his direct appeal was affirmed.
- After Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences law and added Penal Code § 1170.95, Estrada petitioned for resentencing under § 1170.95 claiming he was not the actual killer, lacked intent to kill, and was not a major participant acting with reckless indifference.
- The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, finding Estrada failed to make a prima facie showing because the record established he was convicted as a direct aider and abettor who acted with intent to kill.
- The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 401 (aiding and abetting liability) and a bracketed paragraph of CALCRIM No. 400 was read; CALCRIM Nos. 402/403 (natural-and-probable-consequences instructions) were not given, and the prosecution did not request them.
- The prosecutor’s closing argued that Estrada knew the shooter’s plan and that violence was "likely to occur," but the court found these statements were arguments about aider-and-abettor intent under CALCRIM No. 401, not an invitation to convict under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine.
- The trial court held, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that Estrada was convicted as a direct aider and abettor requiring malice/intent to kill and therefore is ineligible for relief under § 1170.95 as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Estrada) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Estrada is eligible for § 1170.95 relief given his conviction | Record shows Estrada was convicted as a direct aider/abettor with intent to kill, so not eligible | Jury may have convicted under natural-and-probable-consequences, so §1170.95 eligibility possible | Denied — conviction as direct aider with malice makes him ineligible as a matter of law |
| Whether giving bracketed CALCRIM No. 400 without CALCRIM 402/403 and prosecutor closing amounted to an NPC theory | No; prosecution never requested 402/403 and argued defendant’s own intent; any error harmless | Bracketed language plus argument could have allowed NPC-based conviction | Held harmless — bracketed language alone and argument insufficient to show jury convicted under NPC |
| Whether trial court erred in denying prima facie showing and not issuing an order to show cause | The record forecloses a prima facie showing because jury instructions required intent to kill | A prima facie showing was made and an OSC should have issued | Denial affirmed — prima facie not met given the instructions and record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (explains SB 1437 purpose and § 1170.95 relief framework)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (SB 1437 does not eliminate direct aider-and-abettor liability for murder)
- People v. Johnson, 62 Cal.4th 600 (Cal. 2016) (CALCRIM No. 400 with No. 401 is not reasonably likely to permit imputation of the shooter’s mental state to an aider)
- People v. Letner & Tobin, 50 Cal.4th 99 (Cal. 2010) (error in referring to NPC doctrine can be harmless where prosecutor argues defendants intended all offenses and does not request NPC instructions)
- People v. Rivas, 214 Cal.App.4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (observes low likelihood jury will rely on NPC absent argument or instruction)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (Cal. 1996) (discusses juror reliance on NPC doctrine in absence of party argument)