People v. Soy CA2/2
B307805A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 14, 2022Background
- Kirivuthy Soy was convicted of second-degree murder for the killing of Dara Ork; Soy did not stab the victim but pointed a firearm at a companion while his twin brother stabbed Ork.
- Jury was instructed on two theories: direct aiding-and-abetting and the natural-and-probable-consequences (NP) doctrine (aiding assault with a deadly weapon).
- Soy was sentenced to 15 years to life plus a 10-year firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53(b)).
- Soy filed a Penal Code § 1170.95 petition (post–SB 1437) seeking vacatur and resentencing; the trial court summarily denied the petition for failure to state a prima facie case.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the trial court erred because the record did not conclusively show ineligibility; the case was remanded for an order to show cause and an evidentiary hearing under § 1170.95(d).
- The court clarified that at any § 1170.95(d)(3) hearing the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the petitioner is guilty of murder under the law as amended (SB 1437), and that a finding of substantial evidence is insufficient to meet that burden (as clarified by SB 775).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly summarily denied the § 1170.95 petition | The record of conviction supports a valid theory of liability (direct aiding/abetting), so no prima facie showing for relief | The petition facially met § 1170.95(b) and the record does not conclusively show ineligibility | Trial court erred; remand for order to show cause and § 1170.95(d) proceedings |
| Whether the record conclusively establishes ineligibility as a matter of law | Substantial evidence shows Soy aided and abetted the killing (valid ground) | Jury was instructed on both valid and invalid theories; general verdict does not show which theory was relied on | Record does not conclusively refute petition; prima facie case exists |
| Standard of proof at a § 1170.95(d) evidentiary hearing | The People must show guilt under current law; some courts suggested a substantial-evidence-style review | Defendant argued the court should require the People to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at the hearing | Under SB 775 and § 1170.95(d)(3), the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty under the amended law; substantial evidence is insufficient |
| Motion to strike firearm enhancement on resentencing | N/A (People opposed remand) | Soy asked the court on remand to consider striking the § 12022.53(b) enhancement if resentenced | Request is moot if resentencing is granted (enhancement would be inapplicable); if petition denied, SB 620 relief is unavailable because conviction is final |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (explaining SB 1437’s elimination of NP liability for murder and the framework for § 1170.95 review)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (discussing SB 1437’s intent and malice requirement under amended § 188)
- People v. Martinez, 31 Cal.App.5th 719 (discussing availability of § 1170.95 relief for NP-based convictions)
- People v. Duke, 55 Cal.App.5th 113 (advocated substantial-evidence approach to § 1170.95(d) hearings; review granted and guidance later affected by SB 775)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (held trial court should accept petition allegations as true unless record conclusively refutes them)
- People v. Fortman, 64 Cal.App.5th 217 (applied beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard at § 1170.95(d) hearing)
- People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798 (describing the limited scope of the prima facie inquiry using the record of conviction)