People v. Smith CA4/1, D078320A

In 1999 Marquell Smith was convicted of first-degree murder for the fatal shooting of a store clerk during an armed robbery; the jury returned true findings on robbery-murder special-circumstance and firearm allegations and Smith was sentenced to life without parole plus additional terms.
Senate Bill 1437 (effective Jan 1, 2019) narrowed felony-murder liability and created a retroactive resentencing mechanism (§1172.6) for defendants who were not the actual killer, did not intend to kill, and were not major participants who acted with reckless indifference.
Smith filed a §1172.6 petition seeking vacatur and resentencing; the prosecutor and trial court denied the petition summarily, reasoning the 1999 robbery-murder special-circumstance finding rendered him ineligible as a matter of law.
This court initially affirmed the summary denial after applying People v. Banks and People v. Clark standards to the trial record, but the California Supreme Court directed reconsideration in light of People v. Strong.
Applying Strong, the Court of Appeal held that a pre-Banks/Clark felony-murder special-circumstance finding does not categorically bar a prima facie showing under §1172.6, reversed the summary denial, and remanded with instructions to issue an order to show cause and proceed under §1172.6.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pre-Banks/Clark felony-murder special-circumstance finding categorically precludes a §1172.6 prima facie showing	The prior true finding necessarily proves Smith was the actual killer, aided with intent, or was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference, so he is ineligible	Because Banks and Clark later clarified "major participant" and "reckless indifference," the pre-Banks/Clark finding cannot bar a prima facie showing	Pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance findings do not categorically preclude a prima facie showing; remand to issue an order to show cause (following People v. Strong)
Whether a court may resolve eligibility at the prima facie stage by applying Banks/Clark to a pre-Banks/Clark trial record	The court can independently review the record and, applying Banks/Clark, deny the petition if evidence would have supported the special-circumstance finding under those standards	A post-hoc Banks/Clark sufficiency review of a pre-Banks/Clark trial record is improper at the prima facie stage because trial context, available arguments, and instructions differed	Court held such after-the-fact sufficiency review is impermissible at the prima facie stage for pre-Banks/Clark cases; issue an order to show cause and proceed with §1172.6 process

People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (2022) (pre-Banks/Clark felony-murder special-circumstance findings do not categorically bar a §1172.6 prima facie showing)
People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (identified factors relevant to whether an accomplice is a "major participant")
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (clarified meaning of "reckless indifference to human life")
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (procedural standards for evaluating §1172.6 prima facie petitions)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (context on Senate Bill 1437 reforms and retroactive relief mechanism)