People v. Perna CA4/3
G060077
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2021Background
- Defendant Deborah Ann Perna was convicted of first-degree murder and a robbery-murder special circumstance; sentenced to life without parole.
- Evidence at trial: Perna gave a note with the victim’s name/address, solicited Pacoima Flats gang member Navarro (through coworker Edelmira Corona) to kill the victim in exchange for cash, and urged Corona to stay silent; Navarro’s vehicle and calls linked to Corona were connected to the murder.
- The jury found Perna guilty and returned a true finding on the robbery special circumstance.
- Perna filed a Penal Code §1170.95 petition after SB 1437, arguing she was convicted under a felony-murder theory and lacked the requisite reckless indifference/intent to kill.
- The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage because the jury was instructed and argued to find the special circumstance only on an aider-and-abettor intent-to-kill theory (the reckless-indifference/major-participant theory was stricken).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the record of conviction establishes the jury necessarily found intent to kill, rendering §1170.95 relief unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perna made a prima facie showing under §1170.95 to warrant an evidentiary hearing on major-participant/reckless-indifference theory | The record (jury instructions and prosecutor’s argument) shows the special circumstance required a finding that Perna acted with intent to kill, so she is ineligible for §1170.95 relief | Perna argues she was convicted under felony-murder/accomplice theories and lacked reckless indifference; she is therefore entitled to a hearing to show she is eligible for relief | Affirmed: jury was instructed only on aider-and-abettor intent-to-kill for the special circumstance; the record establishes intent to kill, so §1170.95 relief is unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Wende v. California, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedures when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (trial court may consult record of conviction at §1170.95 prima facie stage)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (major-participant/reckless-indifference framework for accomplice liability)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (application of Banks to accomplice liability scenarios)
- People v. Flores, 54 Cal.App.5th 266 (discussing appellate review duties after a Wende brief in §1170.95 appeals)
- People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (trial transcripts and jury instructions are part of the record of conviction for §1170.95 prima facie review)