People v. Jackson CA2/7, B296340A

In 1994 Arthur Duane Jackson was convicted of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and carjacking, with a true finding he personally used a firearm; he received an indeterminate life term.
Trial facts show Jackson and a codefendant displayed firearms during the robbery; the codefendant shot the victim while the victim lay on the ground.
In January 2019 Jackson filed a petition under Penal Code §1170.95 seeking resentencing, alleging his attempted-murder conviction rested on felony-murder or the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, and requested appointed counsel.
The superior court summarily denied the petition, reasoning §1170.95 applied only to murder, not attempted murder; Jackson was not represented when the denial was made.
After appeal and the California Supreme Court’s transfer, the Court of Appeal reconsidered the denial in light of Senate Bill 775 (which extends some §1170.95 relief to attempted murder) and People v. Lewis.
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, directing the superior court to appoint counsel and proceed with the §1170.95(c) prima facie review and, if warranted, issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing under §1170.95(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1170.95 applies to attempted murder and thus whether the superior court correctly summarily denied Jackson's petition	§1170.95 applies only to murder; Jackson is ineligible	SB 775 and legislative changes make §1170.95 relief available for attempted murder committed under the natural-and-probable-consequences theory	Reversed: SB 775 and Lewis require reconsideration; remand for §1170.95(c) proceedings because attempted-murder relief may be available
Whether the court must appoint counsel before conducting the prima facie review under §1170.95(c) and whether denial without counsel violated rights	Court may proceed; summary denial was proper under old view	Jackson: requested counsel and was entitled to appointment before prima facie review; also argued due process violation	Per People v. Lewis and amended §1170.95, the superior court must appoint counsel upon a facially sufficient petition requesting counsel; remand to appoint counsel and perform prima facie review (no federal right to counsel at initial stage per Lewis)

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (establishing counsel appointment and prima facie-review procedures under §1170.95)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (explaining elimination of the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine for murder)