People v. Green CA2/6, B302182

Appellant Raquel Green pleaded no contest in 2016 to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code § 192(a)), admitted gang and firearm enhancements, and was sentenced to 22 years.
The superior court presiding in a co-defendant’s trial found Green drove and positioned the vehicle to facilitate the shooting and escape.
S.B. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences liability and added Penal Code § 1170.95, allowing petitions to vacate murder convictions for persons who could not be convicted of murder under the amended law.
Green petitioned under § 1170.95 to vacate her conviction and obtain resentencing.
The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel, concluding Green was ineligible as a matter of law because she had not been convicted of murder and was a direct aider and abettor.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding § 1170.95 applies only to murder convictions and thus Green’s voluntary manslaughter plea made her ineligible; it also held no duty to appoint counsel given legal ineligibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1170.95 applies to voluntary manslaughter convictions	§ 1170.95 limited to murder; petitioner must have been convicted of first or second degree murder	Green: her plea should not bar relief under § 1170.95; statute’s remedial purpose implies broader coverage	Held: § 1170.95 applies only to murder convictions; voluntary manslaughter convictions are ineligible (affirmed)
Whether summary denial required appointment of counsel and further briefing/hearing	Trial court: no duty to appoint counsel where petitioner legally ineligible	Green: court should have appointed counsel and allowed briefing/evidence because she made a prima facie showing	Held: No appointment required because legal ineligibility (manslaughter plea) defeated prima facie showing
Whether excluding manslaughter petitioners violates due process or equal protection	State: statutory text confines relief to murder; courts have rejected constitutional challenge	Green: exclusion is arbitrary and violates due process/equal protection	Held: Constitutional challenges rejected for reasons adopted from controlling precedent

People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (2019) (explains pre‑S.B. 1437 felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrines)
People v. Cervantes, 44 Cal.App.5th 884 (2020) (holds § 1170.95 applies only to murder convictions)
People v. Paige, 51 Cal.App.5th 194 (2020) (approves Cervantes’ interpretation that § 1170.95 excludes manslaughter)
People v. Sanchez, 48 Cal.App.5th 914 (2020) (rejects due process and equal protection challenges to limiting § 1170.95 to murder)
People v. Flores, 44 Cal.App.5th 985 (2020) (concludes § 1170.95 relief does not extend to manslaughter convictions)