People v. Mo CA4/3, G060851

In 1999 defendant participated in a plan that resulted in Eric Liu’s murder; his charred remains were recovered from the trunk of his car.
In 2001 a jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder and found the lying-in-wait special circumstance; the court sentenced her to life without parole.
In 2019 defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code §1170.95; the trial court initially denied it on constitutional grounds, and this court reversed and remanded for merits review.
After additional briefing and a 2021 hearing, the trial court summarily denied the §1170.95 petition, finding no prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.
The court relied on the lying-in-wait special circumstance, which required a jury finding that defendant aided and abetted the killing with express malice, rendering her ineligible for §1170.95 relief as a matter of law.
Appellate counsel filed a Wende opening brief raising no arguable issues; this Court conducted an independent review and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code §1170.95	The People argued the jury’s lying-in-wait special circumstance necessarily established that defendant aided and abetted with express malice, so she is ineligible for §1170.95 relief	Defendant contended she could be entitled to relief under §1170.95 (having been a non‑triggerman / not necessarily harboring express malice)	Court held defendant ineligible as a matter of law; no prima facie showing, so petition properly denied and order affirmed

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (requires appellate court independent review when counsel files brief asserting no arguable issues)
People v. Flores, 54 Cal.App.5th 266 (2020) (applies and explains scope of independent appellate review in post‑Wende context)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (§1170.95 ineligibility when record shows the jury necessarily found express malice)
People v. Johnson, 123 Cal.App.3d 106 (1981) (defines what constitutes an "arguable issue" on appeal)