People v. Maraglino CA4/1, D077746

In April 2012 Brittany K. was lured from her apartment, sent a text reading “Help,” and was later found dead of ligature strangulation near Lake Skinner; forensic and cell‑phone evidence tied the movements of Perez, Lopez, and Maraglino to the crime and cover‑up.
Lopez wrote confession letters taking responsibility and described torture; physical evidence (stun baton, DNA, power‑saw marks, bleach) and cell‑data corroborated involvement and disposal of the body.
A jury convicted Maraglino of first‑degree murder (felony‑murder with kidnapping special circumstance), kidnapping, and conspiracy; the appellate court affirmed those convictions, rejecting sufficiency challenges and applying the Banks/Clark standards to find she was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
Maraglino later petitioned under Penal Code §1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437) seeking resentencing, arguing she was not the killer, did not aid the killer, and did not meet the Banks/Clark thresholds.
The trial court reviewed the record of conviction (after briefing) and denied the petition as a matter of law; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the record plainly established Maraglino was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference and thus is ineligible for §1170.95 relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Maraglino)	Held
Whether the trial court could consider the record of conviction (facts beyond the petition) at the prima facie §1170.95 stage	Court may review the record of conviction to determine ineligibility as a matter of law; review limited to readily ascertainable facts	Court should be limited to the petition’s allegations; cannot reopen jury factual findings at prima facie stage	Court may consider the record of conviction (without new fact‑finding) to determine as a matter of law that petitioner is ineligible; denial appropriate where record conclusively shows ineligibility
Whether Maraglino made a prima facie showing that, under Banks/Clark, she was not a major participant acting with reckless indifference	Record shows Maraglino planned/lured the victim, directed disposal of phone, hid/altered evidence, and had fantasy writings—supporting major participant and reckless indifference findings	Appellant argued she did not personally kill or physically participate in the kidnapping and that factual disputes/possible errors preclude dispositive denial	The record (including the prior appellate opinion applying Banks/Clark) demonstrates Maraglino was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference; she is ineligible for §1170.95 relief

People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (articulated factors for determining whether an aider‑and‑abettor was a "major participant")
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (articulated factors for determining whether a defendant acted with "reckless indifference to human life")
People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (trial court may consult record of conviction at prima facie §1170.95 review)
People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (§1170.95 facial sufficiency; record review limited to readily ascertainable facts and may defeat a petition as a matter of law)
People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (record of conviction can demonstrate ineligibility for §1170.95 relief)