People v. Mooney CA2/3
B309443
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Jan. 12, 1991: At a Torrance movie theater, Mooney and a codefendant, armed and masked, participated in a violent attempted robbery; employees and painters were bound at gunpoint. An usher, Daniel Hernandez, was later found shot and died.
- Mooney was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder, robbery, and multiple assaults; the jury was instructed on felony‑murder and the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theories; he received 25 years‑to‑life plus additional terms.
- In Dec. 2019 Mooney filed a section 1170.95 petition asserting he was not the shooter and that his conviction rested on now‑invalid theories after SB 1437 (felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences no longer support murder liability in many cases).
- The trial court summarily denied the petition, finding Mooney was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life and therefore ineligible for §1170.95 relief.
- On appeal the People conceded the trial court erred; the Court of Appeal agreed, holding Mooney made a prima facie showing under the standard in People v. Drayton and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper prima facie standard under §1170.95 | Trial court may deny if record shows petitioner ineligible (People argued at trial that Mooney was ineligible; on appeal People conceded error) | Court should assume petition allegations true at prima facie stage and not resolve credibility or disputed facts | Adopt Drayton approach: accept petition allegations as true for prima facie review; if petitioner makes prima facie showing, court must issue order to show cause |
| Whether Mooney was ineligible as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference | Trial court found, based on record, Mooney was a major participant with reckless indifference and thus ineligible | Mooney argued he was not the actual shooter and his conviction may have depended on now‑invalid theories, so he made a prima facie showing | Court held the trial court prematurely denied relief; Mooney made a prima facie showing and the case must be remanded for an OSC and evidentiary hearing |
| Use of prior trial record to resolve eligibility at prima facie stage | Record evidence can conclusively show ineligibility at prima facie stage (position reflected in some appellate decisions) | Petitioner says trial court cannot resolve disputed facts or credibility at prima facie review | Court: trial court may not resolve disputed issues of fact at prima facie; observations about the record are insufficient to deny without issuing OSC and holding hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (discussing SB 1437 changes to malice and murder liability)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (adopting rule that courts should accept petition allegations as true at prima facie stage)
- People v. Garcia, 57 Cal.App.5th 100 (taking a contrary view that courts may rely on record evidence to deny at prima facie)
- People v. Tarkington, 49 Cal.App.5th 892 (endorsing Drayton standard)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (describing pre‑SB 1437 imputation of malice for felony‑murder)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (addressing procedural questions about the §1170.95 prima facie inquiries)