People v. Soto
51 Cal.App.5th 1043
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1996 a jury convicted Martin Soto of second‑degree murder for driving a car from which Danny Garcia shot and killed Kurt Hintz; Bales testified Soto told Garcia to “just shoot” the victim.
- Jury was instructed on first‑ and second‑degree murder (including implied malice), voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, and general aider‑and‑abettor principles.
- The jury received a natural‑and‑probable‑consequences instruction only as to involuntary manslaughter (non‑murder target offenses); no natural‑and‑probable‑consequences instruction was given for first or second‑degree murder.
- Soto filed a Pen. Code § 1170.95 petition (post‑SB 1437) claiming his murder conviction rested on the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine or felony murder and that he is therefore eligible for resentencing.
- The trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, relying on the jury instructions and the appellate opinion; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the record of conviction (the instructions) shows Soto was a direct aider/abettor convicted on implied malice, not under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences or felony‑murder theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by relying on the prior appellate opinion/record to deny Soto’s §1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause? | People: Trial court may consult the record of conviction (including appellate opinion) and jury instructions to determine prima facie entitlement; reliance was proper. | Soto: Appellate opinion cannot substitute for evidentiary factfinding; reliance rendered denial erroneous and required an evidentiary hearing. | Denial affirmed: even if trial court referenced the opinion, the jury instructions in the record independently and conclusively refuted §1170.95 eligibility, so no error requiring remand. |
| Was Soto convicted under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences or felony‑murder doctrines such that §1170.95 relief could apply? | People: Jury was not instructed on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences for murder; conviction reflects direct aider/abettor liability based on implied malice. | Soto: Language overlap in implied malice and ‘‘natural consequences’’ suggests the jury relied on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences to convict him of second‑degree murder. | Held: Jury instructions show Soto was convicted as a direct aider/abettor (implied malice); he was not convicted under natural‑and‑probable‑consequences or felony‑murder, so §1170.95 relief is unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (explains distinction between direct aider‑and‑abettor liability and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (requires identification of target offense when prosecution relies on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (a direct aider‑and‑abettor must share the perpetrator’s mens rea)
- People v. Soto, 4 Cal.5th 968 (discusses implied malice and the mental state for implied‑malice murder)
- People v. Edwards, 48 Cal.App.5th 666 (trial courts may consult record of conviction, including jury instructions, in §1170.95 prima facie review)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (trial court must make prima facie determination drawing all inferences in petitioner’s favor)
- People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (explains SB 1437’s narrowing of felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability)