People v. Lopez CA4/3, G063854A

In 2015 Lopez pled guilty to attempted murder and street terrorism and admitted in a Tahl plea form that he acted 'with the specific intent to kill' and 'attempt[ed] to murder' the victim, that he was a principal, and that another principal intentionally discharged a firearm.
He was sentenced to 25 years under a negotiated plea.
In July 2023 Lopez filed a petition under Penal Code section 1172.6 seeking resentencing, asserting he could not now be convicted because of post‑2019 changes barring natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability for attempted murder.
The prosecutor responded with the plea and complaint and urged denial at the prima facie stage, arguing Lopez’s plea admitted the elements of attempted murder under current law.
The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, concluding the plea admissions foreclosed a natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory; Lopez appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the plea conclusively established only the specific‑intent element but did not conclusively establish the actus reus or that Lopez was a direct perpetrator or direct aider and abettor; remanded for an order to show cause and evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lopez’s plea admission that he ‘attempted to murder’ conclusively defeats eligibility for relief under §1172.6 at the prima facie stage	The People: the plea admitted the elements of attempted murder under current law, so the petition fails at prima facie	Lopez: the plea language is ambiguous about what acts he performed and may reflect liability only under the now‑invalid natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory	Held: plea conclusively establishes specific intent to kill but does not conclusively establish the actus reus or that he was a direct perpetrator; prima facie denial was error; remand for OSC and hearing
Whether the trial court may resolve disputed factual inferences from the record of conviction at the prima facie stage	The People: the record of conviction (plea form) resolves the issue and precludes relief	Lopez: the record is ambiguous and cannot be used to resolve material factual disputes at prima facie stage	Held: courts may rely on the record, but cannot resolve material factual disputes; ambiguity here required an evidentiary hearing

People v. Curiel, 15 Cal.5th 433 (2023) (explains limits on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability after 2019 and statute’s remedial purpose)
People v. Patton, 17 Cal.5th 549 (2025) (prima facie review is limited and courts cannot resolve material factual disputes at that stage)
People v. Glass, 110 Cal.App.5th 922 (2025) (court affirmed prima facie denial where plea and record unambiguously established personal perpetration)
People v. Ramos, 103 Cal.App.5th 460 (2024) (a plea admission of specific intent can conclusively establish that element)
People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (1996) (describes natural‑and‑probable‑consequences aider and abettor act requirements)
People v. Mejia, 211 Cal.App.4th 586 (2012) (elements of attempted murder: specific intent plus a direct but ineffectual act)