68 Cal.App.5th 177
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 1991 Vincent Medrano was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder (multiple‑death special circumstances), two counts of attempted murder, and one count of conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder; he was sentenced to 50 years‑to‑life plus one year for a firearm enhancement.
- The underlying incident was a drive‑by shooting: Medrano and others bought a rifle, rode in a car in which Edward Throop fired into a group at a baptism; two people died and two were wounded.
- In 2019 Medrano petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (S.B. 1437), which provides relief for persons convicted under the pre‑2019 felony‑murder rule or the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine.
- The trial court issued an order to show cause and, following a hearing where the prosecution bore the burden to prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt, denied the § 1170.95 petition.
- The majority held Medrano ineligible because his conspiracy conviction to commit first‑degree murder established, as a matter of law, that the target offense was murder (i.e., he shared the intent to kill), so he was not convicted under a natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory.
- A dissent argued the jury may have relied on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences instructions and was confused by post‑deliberation clarifying instructions, so remand for further factual development was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction for conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder precludes § 1170.95 relief | Conspiracy conviction proves the target offense was murder (intent to kill), so petitioner was not convicted under natural‑and‑probable‑consequences and is ineligible | Conspiracy conviction does not automatically defeat § 1170.95 relief; jury may have relied on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences and been confused by instructions | Held: Conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder establishes intent to kill; § 1170.95 relief unavailable as a matter of law |
| Whether the People forfeited the argument by failing to appeal the order to show cause | Order to show cause was not appealable and, in any event, the People can still argue at the hearing | People’s failure to appeal forfeits the issue | Held: Order to show cause was a nonappealable preliminary eligibility determination (no forfeiture) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (interpreting S.B. 1437 as eliminating natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability for murder)
- People v. Beck & Cruz, 8 Cal.5th 548 (Cal. 2019) (conspiracy to murder is conspiracy to commit premeditated first‑degree murder; no possibility convictions rested on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory)
- People v. Swain, 12 Cal.4th 593 (Cal. 1996) (conspiracy to commit murder requires intent to kill; cannot be based on implied malice)
- People v. Horn, 12 Cal.3d 290 (Cal. 1974) (conspiracy requires intent to commit the elements of the target offense)
- People v. Cortez, 18 Cal.4th 1223 (Cal. 1998) (all conspiracy to commit murder is conspiracy to commit premeditated first‑degree murder)
- People v. Montellano, 39 Cal.App.5th 148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (order to show cause under § 1170.95 is a preliminary eligibility determination and not appealable)
- People v. Anderson, 141 Cal.App.4th 430 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (definition of felony murder arises from killings occurring during enumerated predicate felonies)