People v. Monroy CA4/3, G058919M

In 2005 Marco Antonio Monroy was convicted of multiple offenses, including attempted murder, and sentence included a term of years plus life with parole.
On direct appeal the convictions were affirmed (People v. Monroy (Monroy I)).
In January 2020 Monroy filed a petition under Penal Code §1170.95 (SB 1437 resentencing) but the petition incorrectly stated he had been convicted of murder or felony murder rather than attempted murder.
The superior court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel or holding a hearing.
Monroy appealed, arguing the court erred by denying counsel/hearing and by ruling §1170.95 applies only to murder and not to attempted murder.
The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed, holding Monroy was not entitled to relief as a matter of law because §1170.95 and SB 1437 pertain to murder (first or second degree), not attempted murder; any failure to appoint counsel was harmless.

Issue	People’s Argument	Monroy’s Argument	Held
Whether §1170.95 applies to attempted murder	SB 1437 and §1170.95 apply only to murder; attempted murder is excluded by statutory text and legislative history	§1170.95 should cover attempted murder when the charging documents and doctrines at issue could have supported murder liability	Court held §1170.95 does not apply to attempted murder; Monroy not eligible as matter of law
Whether denial without appointment of counsel or hearing was error	Petition was facially deficient (Monroy was not convicted of murder); even if counsel should have been appointed, failure was harmless when relief is unavailable as a matter of law	Court erred by refusing to appoint counsel and hold a hearing under §1170.95	Court held no reversible error: petition deficient and any failure to appoint counsel harmless

People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (Cal. Ct. App.) (SB 1437 and §1170.95 pertain to murder and exclude attempted murder)
People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (Cal. Ct. App.) (same conclusion that SB 1437 applies only to murder)
People v. Medrano, 42 Cal.App.5th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App.) (contrary Fifth District view that §1170.95 can apply to attempted murder)
People v. Dennis, 47 Cal.App.5th 838 (Cal. Ct. App.) (joined majority holding excluding attempted murder)
People v. Cooper, 54 Cal.App.5th 106 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describing petition requirements and prima facie review under §1170.95)
People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (Cal. Ct. App.) (failure to appoint counsel in §1170.95 proceedings is harmless when petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law)
People v. Gonzalez, 2 Cal.5th 1138 (Cal. 2017) (standard of review for pure legal questions is de novo)
People v. Anthony, 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App.) (rejection of a Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim in the §1170.95 context)