73 Cal.App.5th 644
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2008 Porter was convicted (jury) of two counts of attempted murder of police officers, carjacking and related offenses; the attempted-murder convictions were affirmed on appeal under the natural-and-probable-consequences theory (Porter was the driver; a co-defendant shot at CHP officers).
- On January 13, 2020 Porter filed a section 1170.95 petition seeking resentencing, asserting he was not the actual killer, lacked intent to kill, and was not a major participant with reckless indifference.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition on February 13, 2020, reasoning section 1170.95 did not apply to attempted murder as then written.
- Senate Bill No. 775 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) amended section 1170.95 to expressly permit resentencing for certain attempted-murder convictions under the natural-and-probable-consequences theory.
- The parties agreed the amended law applied because the judgment was not final; the People conceded remand may be required. The Court of Appeal reversed the denial and remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings to determine prima facie eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1170.95 applies to attempted-murder convictions under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine after SB 775 | Initially: §1170.95 did not apply to attempted murder when trial court ruled; but with SB 775 the People concede petitioner may be eligible | Porter argued the denial was erroneous post-amendment and requested reversal and remand | Court: SB 775 amendments apply to this nonfinal case; remand required for the trial court to assess prima facie eligibility under amended §1170.95 |
| Appropriate appellate disposition: limited stay/remand vs immediate reversal/remand | People requested a stay and limited remand to the trial court for eligibility determination | Porter asked for full reversal and remand so appeal could be terminated | Court: Reversed the trial court's order and remanded; declined to retain jurisdiction or issue a stay, directing appointment of counsel and further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (describing SB 1437 and the purpose and procedure of §1170.95)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (explaining the limited prima facie inquiry and procedure under §1170.95)
- People v. Vieira, 35 Cal.4th 264 (nonfinal judgments and applicability of intervening law)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (same—effect of changes while appeal pending)
- People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (discussing amendments to §189 including felony-murder liability where victim is a peace officer)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (prejudice standard for showing that an error likely changed the outcome)