People v. Offley
48 Cal.App.5th 588
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- 2006 gang-related shooting: one victim (Alex Barrales) killed, another wounded; five defendants charged.
- Dana Offley and Robert Keller convicted of murder, attempted murder, and shooting at an occupied vehicle; gang enhancements found true.
- Jury findings differed: Offley convicted of second-degree murder and found to have personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§12022.53(d)); Keller convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement under §12022.53(e)(1) (a principal, not necessarily Keller, discharged the firearm).
- After Senate Bill No. 1437 (which limited murder liability under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine), both petitioned under Penal Code §1170.95 for resentencing; petitions sought counsel and relied on changed law.
- Trial court summarily denied both petitions at the prima facie stage without appointing counsel, reasoning the firearm enhancements showed they were ineligible.
- Court of Appeal reversed: §12022.53(d) enhancement alone does not prove malice; Keller’s enhancement was under subdivision (e)(1), not a personal-discharge finding. Case remanded for second-stage §1170.95 proceedings with appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §12022.53(d) personal-discharge enhancement precludes §1170.95 relief | Enhancement proves intent and shows petitioner still punishable for murder under new law; thus ineligible | Offley: (d) requires only intent to discharge firearm, not malice aforethought; does not bar relief | (d) enhancement alone does not establish malice; it does not bar §1170.95 relief as a matter of law |
| Whether Keller’s firearm enhancement establishes he personally fired the fatal shot | Trial court/People treated both enhancements as personal-discharge findings | Keller: enhancement was under §12022.53(e)(1) — shows a principal, not necessarily him, fired | Keller’s enhancement was under (e)(1) and does not show he personally fired; cannot deny petition on that basis |
| Whether the trial court could summarily deny petitions at prima facie stage without counsel or further review | People: record showed enhancements that made petitioners ineligible, so no further proceedings required | Defendants: they made a prima facie showing and were entitled to counsel and second-stage proceedings | Trial court erred: must proceed to §1170.95(c) second stage, appoint counsel, and allow prosecutor response/reply before an order to show cause |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (2013) (definitions and distinctions of express and implied malice)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (limits on natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine for premeditated murder)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (2001) (direct aiders/abettors share murderous intent of perpetrator)
- People v. Lucero, 246 Cal.App.4th 750 (2016) (§12022.53(d) is a general-intent enhancement: intent to discharge, not intent to kill)
- In re Tameka C., 22 Cal.4th 190 (2000) (distinguishing general versus specific intent requirements for enhancements)
- People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (2019) (SB 1437 eliminated use of natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine to prove murder)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (2020) (two-step prima facie procedure under §1170.95)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (2020) (petitioner may be denied only if ineligible as a matter of law)