People v. Taylor CA2/1, B306691

In 1998 Taylor (a self‑admitted Crip member) drove a Buick while a passenger fired multiple shots; deputies returned fire, the car crashed, and an Uzi was left on the driver’s seat.
A jury convicted Taylor of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of two deputies, two counts of assault on a peace officer with a semiautomatic firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon; enhancements (gang, armed with an Uzi, prior convictions) were found true.
The jury found Taylor did not personally use or discharge a firearm in the attempted murder counts.
In 2020 Taylor filed a pro se habeas petition citing Senate Bill No. 1437 (now Penal Code § 1170.95) claiming his attempted murder convictions rested on imputed malice under the natural and probable consequences theory.
The trial court denied relief; on appeal the court treated the filing as a § 1170.95 resentencing petition and affirmed, holding § 1170.95 does not authorize resentencing for attempted murder convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code § 1170.95 permits resentencing for attempted murder convictions.	Taylor: § 1170.95 (SB 1437) applies because his attempted murder convictions rested on imputed malice/natural and probable consequences.	AG: § 1170.95 on its face and by its terms applies only to murder (first or second degree), not attempted murder.	§ 1170.95 does not apply to attempted murder; petitioner ineligible for resentencing.
Whether trial court’s failure to appoint counsel (on petitioner’s § 1170.95 petition) prejudiced Taylor.	Taylor: counsel should have been appointed to prosecute the resentencing petition.	AG: Even if appointment was required, any error was harmless.	Court assumed counsel should have been appointed but found no prejudice; any error harmless.

People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (discussing malice and felony murder rule)
People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (explaining natural and probable consequences doctrine)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (natural and probable consequences background)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (counsel attachment and § 1170.95 procedure)
People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (holding § 1170.95 does not reach attempted murder)
People v. Larios, 42 Cal.App.5th 956 (same conclusion re attempted murder)
People v. Alaybue, 51 Cal.App.5th 207 (same; legislative judgment and judicial economy rationale)
In re R.G., 35 Cal.App.5th 141 (addressing § 1170.95 and juveniles convicted under natural and probable consequences)