People v. Flores CA2/2, B308289

In 1997 Flores participated in a burglary/robbery in which two victims were shot and one died; he was later charged as a participant in first-degree murder and related offenses.
A jury convicted Flores of first-degree murder and found true felony-murder special-circumstance findings for robbery and burglary (§ 190.2(a)(17)) and a firearm enhancement; he received LWOP plus consecutive terms.
Flores filed a habeas petition under People v. Banks/Clark challenging the special-circumstance findings; the superior court denied habeas after applying Banks/Clark factors and finding the findings supported.
Flores then filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 asserting he could not now be convicted of murder under the amended §§ 188/189; the superior court denied the § 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage, relying on the jury’s prior special-circumstance findings.
On appeal the court affirmed, adopting the reasoning in People v. Nunez: a preexisting felony-murder special-circumstance finding that the defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference precludes § 1170.95 relief as a matter of law, and Banks/Clark-based challenges must be pursued via habeas.

Issue	People’s Argument	Flores’s Argument	Held
May a superior court deny a § 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage based solely on a preexisting felony-murder special-circumstance finding?	Yes — such a finding establishes the petitioner remains liable under amended § 189, so petition fails prima facie.	No — preexisting finding should not automatically bar relief; court must evaluate other petition evidence.	Held: Yes. The jury’s special-circumstance finding that Flores was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference means he remains liable under amended law and cannot make a prima facie showing.
May a defendant use a § 1170.95 petition to relitigate or overturn a pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance finding by applying Banks/Clark?	No — Banks/Clark evidentiary challenges must be brought in habeas, where petitioner bears the burden.	Yes — Banks/Clark clarified law and therefore pre-Banks findings should be reexamined in § 1170.95 proceedings.	Held: No. Challenges to the evidentiary sufficiency of special-circumstance findings under Banks/Clark are proper only in habeas; § 1170.95 is not the vehicle to relitigate those findings.

People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (clarified factors for "major participant" and "reckless indifference")
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (clarified reckless indifference includes willingness to kill to achieve a goal)
People v. Nunez, 57 Cal.App.5th 78 (held preexisting special-circumstance findings can preclude § 1170.95 relief)
People v. Jones, 56 Cal.App.5th 474 (similar treatment of special-circumstance findings under § 1170.95)
People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449 (same principle rejecting § 1170.95 as vehicle for Banks/Clark attack)
People v. Gomez, 52 Cal.App.5th 1 (explained habeas is appropriate vehicle for Banks/Clark challenges)
People v. Ramirez, 41 Cal.App.5th 923 (example where habeas succeeded, requiring resentencing under § 1170.95)
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (Supreme Court antecedent on accomplice liability and death penalty limits)
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court antecedent on major participant/reckless indifference analysis)
In re Miranda, 43 Cal.4th 541 (habeas standard: petitioner bears burden to prove insufficiency of evidence)