People v. Jace CA2/3, B337672

Michael Andrew Jace was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing his wife, April, in 2014; their two sons were present in the home.
The People charged Jace as the sole perpetrator, and the jury found true an enhancement that he personally discharged a firearm causing death.
Jace was sentenced to 40 years to life; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2023, Jace petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.6, citing changes from SB 1437 and SB 775, which limit murder liability for non-killers or those convicted under certain vicarious liability theories.
The trial court denied the petition after finding that Jace was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief under the statutory amendments.
Jace appealed the denial and, through appointed counsel, filed a supplemental brief arguing issues with jury instructions and disputed facts but did not deny being the actual killer or assert accomplice liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for Resentencing under § 1172.6	Jace is ineligible because he was the actual killer and sole participant	No denial of being the killer; argues jury instruction errors, disputed facts, and lack of conscious thought	Jace is ineligible as a matter of law; trial court's denial affirmed
Prima Facie Showing for Relief	Record shows Jace was sole and actual killer	Petition asserts eligibility without evidence of vicarious liability	No prima facie case; petition properly denied

People v. Delgadillo, 14 Cal.5th 216 (Cal. 2022) (clarifies appellate procedures for § 1172.6 petitions where counsel finds no arguable issues)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (details the standard for prima facie review of § 1172.6 petitions)
People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (amendments do not apply to actual killers or those with intent to kill)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (clarifies scope of murder liability post-SB 1437)
People v. Reyes, 14 Cal.5th 981 (Cal. 2023) (confirms implied malice remains valid theory for murder liability)