People v. Kemp CA3, C099377A

Jamal Kemp pleaded no contest to attempted murder (with firearm) in November 2020 and was sentenced to 26 years in prison pursuant to a plea deal.
The charged conduct occurred in 2019 and involved shooting at two women, one of whom was struck.
In 2022, Kemp filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, stemming from statutory changes that eliminated liability for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
The trial court denied the petition, finding Kemp ineligible because his plea came after the effective date of the relevant statutory changes.
On appeal, the appellate court originally reversed, concluding the trial court’s rationale was incorrect, but the case was remanded from the Supreme Court to reconsider in light of People v. Patton.
The appellate court vacated the denial and remanded, instructing the trial court to consider whether Kemp’s conviction rested on a still-valid theory, with reference to the preliminary hearing transcript and allowing Kemp to allege additional facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Kemp's eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6	Conviction post-SB 1437 made Kemp ineligible as a matter of law	Statute didn't clearly cover attempted murder pleas	Kemp's plea, by itself, doesn't establish ineligibility; remand for proper analysis
Use of preliminary hearing evidence in petition review	Preliminary transcript shows conviction not based on old doctrine	Should not consider preliminary hearing at this stage	Preliminary transcript can be considered if facts are unchallenged per Patton
Sufficiency of petition's allegations (checkbox format)	Checkbox petition insufficient if record forecloses relief	Petition form sufficient for prima facie showing	Checkbox petition may be refuted only by unchallenged, relief-foreclosing record facts
Opportunity to allege non-conclusory supporting facts	No further factual allegations needed	Kemp should have chance to supplement facts	Kemp must be allowed to plead additional facts if the record appears to foreclose

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (clarified trial court's prima facie review and limited factfinding for resentencing petitions)
People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (described burden of proof and evidentiary standards in 1172.6 proceedings)
People v. Patton, 17 Cal.5th 549 (Cal. 2025) (held unchecked, relief-foreclosing facts in record can defeat prima facie showing at 1172.6 stage)