People v. Mancilla
67 Cal.App.5th 854
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On Dec. 25, 2010 Mancilla and others (including Rojas) fired at an apartment occupied by a rival gang; a shootout ensued and Cesar Guerrero was killed. Mancilla was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder and multiple counts of attempted murder.
- The jury was instructed on provocative‑act (implied‑malice) murder, attempted murder, and the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine; the prosecution relied on the provocative‑act theory.
- Mancilla was sentenced to an aggregate term of 90 years to life; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal (with limited remand on sentencing issues).
- After Senate Bill 1437, Mancilla filed a pro se Penal Code § 1170.95 petition claiming eligibility for resentencing as someone convicted under felony murder or the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine; the superior court denied the petition summarily without appointing counsel.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: (1) the trial court erred under later Supreme Court precedent in not appointing counsel, but that error was harmless because the record conclusively shows Mancilla was convicted under the provocative‑act (malice) theory and therefore is ineligible for § 1170.95 relief; (2) excluding provocative‑act murder from § 1170.95 does not violate equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Mancilla) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was it error to deny the § 1170.95 petition without appointing counsel? | Court should deny if petition fails prima facie; counsel not required at outset. | Lewis requires appointment of counsel when petition is facially sufficient; trial court erred. | Error in failing to appoint counsel, but harmless because record conclusively shows ineligibility. |
| 2. Is Mancilla eligible for § 1170.95 resentencing (i.e., was he convicted under felony murder or natural‑and‑probable‑consequences)? | Conviction was for provocative‑act (implied‑malice) murder, not felony or NPC, so ineligible. | Provocative‑act murder is a subset of NPC murder and thus within § 1170.95. | Provocative‑act murder requires proof of malice and is not within § 1170.95; Mancilla is ineligible. |
| 3. Does the record permit summary denial (court relying on its recollection and appellate brief)? | Court may consult record of conviction to resolve prima facie inquiry. | Reliance on court’s recollection and appellate brief was improper. | Any procedural missteps were harmless because the record (including the opinion) demonstrates provocative‑act theory was used. |
| 4. Does excluding provocative‑act murder from § 1170.95 violate equal protection? | Legislature rationally distinguished defendants who personally acted with malice from those convicted without proof of malice. | Mancilla says both groups are similarly situated (non‑killers, no intent to kill) so exclusion is irrational. | No equal protection violation: persons who personally harbored malice are not similarly situated to those convicted under NPC/felony murder. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777 (Cal. 1965) (distinguishes felony‑murder attribution where victim, not felon, kills; recognizes liability under implied malice for initiating deadly encounters)
- People v. Gilbert, 63 Cal.2d 690 (Cal. 1965) (articulates provocative‑act doctrine: defendant’s intentional dangerous act causing an intermediary’s lethal response can sustain murder)
- People v. Caldwell, 36 Cal.3d 210 (Cal. 1984) (discusses mental state and provocative‑act murder principles)
- People v. Gonzalez, 54 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2012) (explains provocative‑act murder requires proof the defendant personally harbored malice)
- People v. Concha, 47 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2009) (defines proximate cause in provocative‑act cases and distinguishes mens rea from actus reus analyses)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (explains Senate Bill 1437’s abolition of natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability and its narrowing of felony‑murder)
- People v. Soto, 4 Cal.5th 968 (Cal. 2018) (defines implied malice and confirms SB 1437 did not eliminate liability for those who acted with implied malice)
- People v. Swanson, 57 Cal.App.5th 604 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (rejects the argument that provocative‑act murder is subsumed by NPC for § 1170.95 purposes)
- People v. Johnson, 57 Cal.App.5th 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (same conclusion; provocative‑act murder distinct from NPC/felony murder)
- People v. Lee, 49 Cal.App.5th 254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (same; emphasizes malice element distinguishes provocative‑act murder)