42 Cal.App.5th 956
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Richard Rodriguez Larios was convicted (after a second trial) of three counts of premeditated attempted murder and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle; convictions were final following a prior appeal (Larios I).
- Larios asserts he was not the shooter, lacked knowledge another occupant was armed, and did not aid or abet a killing.
- Larios filed a petition under newly enacted Penal Code §1170.95 (prompted by Senate Bill 1437) seeking resentencing on the ground that changes to §§188/189 limit accomplice liability under the natural-and-probable-consequences (NPC) doctrine.
- SB 1437 amended §§188 and 189 and added §1170.95 to restrict murder liability by barring imputed malice and creating a procedure for persons convicted of murder under felony-murder or NPC theories to seek relief.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition, concluding §1170.95 applies only to murder convictions and not to attempted murder; Larios appealed and the court requested supplemental briefing addressing whether SB 1437 affects NPC liability for attempted murder and whether §1170.95 provides relief for final attempted murder convictions.
- The Court of Appeal concluded SB 1437 bars imputed malice (so NPC cannot sustain convictions that require express malice, including attempted murder) but that §1170.95 grants relief only to murder convictions, not attempted murder; it affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Larios) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does SB 1437 abrogate the NPC doctrine for offenses requiring express malice? | No; SB 1437 abrogated NPC only as to murder. | Yes; §188(a)(3) bars imputing malice, so NPC cannot support offenses requiring malice. | Held: Yes. §188(a)(3) precludes imputing malice; NPC cannot support convictions that require express malice. |
| 2) If so, does SB 1437 except attempted murder? | SB 1437 does not apply to attempted murder. | SB 1437 does apply; attempted murder requires express malice and §188(a)(3) is broad. | Held: No exception. §188(a)(3) covers crimes requiring express malice, including attempted murder. |
| 3) Does §1170.95 provide relief for final attempted murder convictions? | §1170.95 is limited to felony murder or murder under NPC and does not reach attempted murder. | Larios seeks relief under §1170.95 for his attempted murder convictions. | Held: No. §1170.95 applies only to murder convictions; attempted murder convictions are categorically excluded; petition properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (explains NPC doctrine and scope of aider-and-abettor liability)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (2001) (distinguishes direct aiding-and-abetting liability from NPC doctrine)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (2002) (implied malice cannot support attempted murder)
- People v. Fontenot, 8 Cal.5th 57 (2019) (attempt crimes require heightened specific intent)
- People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613 (2003) (comparative culpability of aider and abettor under NPC)
- People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (2019) (held §1170.95 limited to murder; reached different view on NPC and attempted murder)
- People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (2019) (addressed SB 1437's scope re attempted murder; court disagreed with its reasoning)