People v. Galarza CA4/3, G061333

In 2012 a jury convicted Damien Galarza of first‑degree murder and street terrorism; jurors found two special circumstances true: lying in wait and murder to further gang activity. Enhancements for gang benefit and vicarious firearm discharge causing death were also found.
Galarza was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on the murder conviction, with concurrent terms for other counts/enhancements.
After Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed murder liability, Galarza filed a pro. per. resentencing petition under Penal Code § 1170.95 (renumbered § 1172.6).
The People opposed the petition; counsel appointed to represent Galarza filed a brief supporting resentencing. After hearing argument, the trial court denied the petition, finding the record (including the jury’s special‑circumstance finding) established intent to kill.
Galarza appealed; appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders letter and the court conducted an independent review. Galarza submitted a pro se brief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Galarza made a prima facie showing under § 1172.6 and is eligible for resentencing under SB 1437	Record shows jury found lying‑in‑wait special circumstance, establishing intent to kill; petitioner therefore ineligible as a matter of law	Petitioner asserts eligibility for resentencing under SB 1437 because he was not the actual killer and seeks relief from felony‑murder/natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability	Denied — the jury’s true finding on the lying‑in‑wait special circumstance established intent to kill, disqualifying petitioner from § 1172.6 relief

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (explaining SB 1437’s limitation on felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability)
People v. Lopez, 78 Cal.App.5th 1 (2022) (a finding of intent to kill precludes § 1172.6 relief as a matter of law)
People v. Johnson, 123 Cal.App.3d 106 (1981) (describing standards for identifying arguable issues on appeal)
People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (procedure for appointed counsel to notify appellate court when no arguable issues are found)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (federal counterpart establishing appointed counsel’s duties when filing a no‑merit brief)