People v. Marin CA2/3, B308620

In 1992 Guillermo Villa was brutally murdered during an apparent robbery; Marin was the only person charged and convicted for the crimes.
Evidence tied Marin to the scene (matching shoe tread, blood on shoes, possession of cash) and no other suspect was charged.
A jury convicted Marin of first‑degree murder and found a robbery‑murder special circumstance true; she was sentenced to life without parole.
In 2019 Marin petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill No. 1437). The trial court appointed counsel but found Marin failed to make a prima facie showing for relief.
The court concluded the jury’s pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance finding required a determination that Marin was either the actual killer, a direct aider/abettor with intent to kill, or a major participant who acted with reckless indifference, so § 1170.95 relief was precluded.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the special‑circumstance finding bars § 1170.95 relief as a matter of law; a challenge to a pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance finding must proceed via habeas corpus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying Marin’s § 1170.95 petition without an evidentiary hearing	The People: the record (special‑circumstance finding) refutes Marin’s eligibility; no prima facie showing	Marin: court improperly relied on record; should have issued order to show cause and held a hearing	Affirmed. Court may deny at prima facie stage when the record conclusively shows ineligibility (no hearing required)
Whether a pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance finding precludes eligibility under § 1170.95	The People: Yes — a true special‑circumstance finding establishes the same elements required under amended § 189, so petitioner is ineligible	Marin: No — Banks and Clark narrowed major‑participant and reckless‑indifference standards, so pre‑Banks/Clark findings cannot be presumed to satisfy current law and should be revisited under § 1170.95	Held for the People. Pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings bar § 1170.95 relief as a matter of law; challenges to such findings must be pursued by habeas corpus

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (explaining SB 1437 § 1170.95 prima facie review standard)
People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (setting factors for "major participant" analysis)
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (setting factors for "reckless indifference" analysis)
In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (discussing habeas as vehicle to challenge pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings)
People v. Galvan, 52 Cal.App.5th 1134 (holding a true special circumstance precludes § 1170.95 relief)
People v. Gomez, 52 Cal.App.5th 1 (same; § 1170.95 not a vehicle to re‑litigate special‑circumstance sufficiency)
People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449 (same; § 1170.95 meant to apply changes prospectively where issues not previously decided)
People v. Murillo, 54 Cal.App.5th 160 (discussing felony‑murder and § 1170.95 eligibility)