B334386
Cal. Ct. App.May 20, 2025Background
- Reese Duron Moore pleaded no contest in 2015 to the attempted murder of Raynard Hall, admitting he personally discharged a firearm in the offense.
- In 2022, Moore filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, asserting post-conviction relief following changes in the law which limited the scope of imputed malice and felony murder theories for attempted murder.
- The Los Angeles Superior Court denied Moore’s petition without ordering an evidentiary hearing, finding Moore ineligible for relief because he acted as the actual and sole shooter.
- Moore appealed, arguing that the record of conviction did not establish he was the actual killer, and that the superior court improperly relied on preliminary hearing testimony.
- While the appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Patton, holding that courts may use preliminary hearing transcripts to determine eligibility for resentencing after a plea.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the superior court’s denial but allowed Moore the opportunity to file an amended petition if he wishes.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Moore) Argument | Respondent (People) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of preliminary hearing testimony for eligibility | Court cannot use preliminary hearing transcript at this stage of resentencing review. | Preliminary hearing testimony is part of the record of conviction and can be used. | Court may use transcript (per Patton). |
| Whether Moore was actual shooter and thus ineligible | Record does not conclusively prove Moore was actual shooter or acted alone. | Moore admitted being the sole shooter; no facts support aiding/abetting or imputed malice theories. | Moore was actual and sole shooter, and ineligible for relief. |
| Sufficiency of plea and record to deny petition | Check-box declaration is sufficient for prima facie showing; no full evidentiary hearing held. | Plea admissions and preliminary hearing facts rebut any prima facie entitlement to relief. | No factual dispute—the court properly denied the petition. |
| Remedy if facts change in amended petition | Remand sought to allow refiling should Moore allege new facts showing eligibility. | No objection noted to remand for potential amended petition. | Remand to allow refiling within 30 days if desired. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Patton, 17 Cal.5th 549 (Cal. 2025) (Preliminary hearing transcripts may be considered in section 1172.6 resentencing eligibility determinations after a plea)
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (Senate Bill 1437 does not provide relief for actual killers or those acting with intent to kill)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (Court may look beyond the petition to the record of conviction at the prima facie stage)