People v. Phothirath CA3
C092316A
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 9, 2022Background
- Defendant Christopher Phothirath joined a confrontation outside a bar in 2001; victim Banemanyvong was beaten and shot and suffered serious injuries.
- Jury convicted Phothirath of assault with a deadly weapon (target offense), attempted murder, and assault with a firearm; jury received CALJIC instructions including the natural and probable consequences (NPC) doctrine and aider-and-abettor instructions; prosecutor argued NPC liability for the attempted murder.
- Defendant filed a Penal Code § 1170.95 petition after Senate Bill No. 1437; trial court denied it, reasoning the record showed the jury found Phothirath personally committed the target assault, so NPC theory applied only to the codefendant.
- Senate Bill No. 775 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) clarified § 1170.95 relief applies to attempted murder convictions predicated on felony-murder or NPC theories; Lewis permits trial courts to consult the record at the prima facie stage but forbids extensive factfinding.
- The Court of Appeal concluded the record does not conclusively refute that jurors relied on an NPC theory as to the attempted murder and reversed the denial of the § 1170.95 petition, directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing.
- The court also accepted the People’s concession (and followed People v. Gonzalez) that imposition of multiple enhancements tied to the same great bodily injury was unauthorized, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Phothirath was eligible for relief under § 1170.95 for an attempted murder conviction under the natural and probable consequences (NPC) theory | The trial court correctly found the record shows jurors found Phothirath personally committed the target assault, so NPC liability did not apply to him; he is ineligible | SB 775 expressly covers attempted murder; trial court engaged in improper factfinding at prima facie and Phothirath made a prima facie showing of eligibility | Reversed: record does not conclusively refute an NPC theory or juror disagreement; remand for order to show cause and § 1170.95(d) hearing |
| Whether the sentence was unauthorized for imposing multiple enhancements tied to the same great bodily injury (Gonzalez issue) | People concede error under Gonzalez; multiple enhancements for the same GBI on one victim in a single offense are improper | Remand for resentencing | Remanded for resentencing consistent with Gonzalez and § 1170.1(g) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (trial court may consult the record at the prima facie stage but must not engage in extensive factfinding; may reject petitions when the record refutes allegations)
- People v. Gonzalez, 178 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (imposition of multiple enhancements for the same great bodily injury on the same victim in a single offense is improper)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001) (actual perpetrator and aider/abettor roles can overlap; both may be principals)
- People v. Olguin, 31 Cal.App.4th 1355 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (perpetrator and aider and abettor are equally liable for natural and foreseeable consequences)
- People v. Rodriguez, 47 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) (interpretation of sentencing enhancement statutes relied upon in Gonzalez)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (courts should not credit factual assertions that are untrue as a matter of law at the prima facie stage)