People v. Marcus CA2/1, B300883A

In May 2008 Marcus participated with co-defendant Galloway in a string of robberies; surveillance and witness testimony implicated them in a convenience-store robbery and a T‑shirt shop robbery that resulted in the murder of Hae Sook Roh.
Video of the T‑shirt shop showed a masked gunman take money and shoot the victim; Sanchez (a cooperating witness) and an audio jail recording placed Marcus at the scene and connected him to the getaway car and clothing/shoes.
A jury convicted Marcus of first‑degree murder and found a felony‑murder special‑circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); he was sentenced to life without parole.
Senate Bill No. 1437 narrowed felony‑murder liability and led to the creation of section 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95), permitting resentencing petitions by defendants who could no longer be convicted under the amended law.
Marcus filed a section 1172.6 petition in 2019; the trial court summarily denied it, concluding the record showed he was at least a major participant who acted with reckless indifference (based on the special‑circumstance finding).
Following the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Strong, the Court of Appeal held the trial court erred at the prima facie stage, reversed the denial, and remanded for an order to show cause and further proceedings under section 1172.6.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pre‑Banks/Clark felony‑murder special‑circumstance finding bars section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law	Special‑circumstance finding establishes major participant + reckless indifference, so petitioner is ineligible	Pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings do not automatically bar relief after People v. Strong	Reversed: pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings do not automatically disqualify at prima facie stage; remand for OSC
Whether the trial court may resolve disputed factual issues or apply Banks/Clark standards at the prima facie stage	Court may independently examine the record and apply Banks/Clark to deny the petition	Court should not engage in factual weighing or apply Banks/Clark at prima facie; bar is low	Held that trial court must not engage in factfinding at prima facie; must issue an order to show cause if petitioner makes a minimal showing

People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings do not automatically preclude section 1172.6 relief; prima facie inquiry has a low bar)
People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (clarified meaning of "major participant" in felony‑murder context)
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (clarified "reckless indifference to human life" standard)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (discussed scope of prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6)
People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (warning against factfinding at the prima facie stage)