People v. Wright CA2/3, B311217

In 2008 Wright led deputies on a vehicle pursuit; after he slowed near an apartment complex, a co‑gang member (Marcos) fired multiple shots at the deputies. Wright fled and was later arrested. He admitted he knew Marcos had a gun and expected Marcos to react violently when deputies followed him.
At trial the jury was instructed on aiding and abetting and the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine; Wright was convicted of two counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder and two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, with gang and firearm enhancements. He received a 40‑years‑to‑life sentence.
Wright’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2011.
In January 2021 Wright filed a Penal Code §1170.95 petition seeking vacation of his attempted murder convictions and resentencing, arguing Senate Bill 1437 (which narrowed accomplice liability for murder and abrogated the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine for murder) made his sentence invalid.
The trial court summarily denied the petition, concluding §1170.95 applies only to murder convictions and not to attempted murder; Wright appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code §1170.95 applies to attempted murder convictions	People: §1170.95 is limited to murder; it authorizes relief only for those convicted of first or second degree murder	Wright: §1170.95 should cover attempted murder — exclusion leads to absurd results; attempted murder is a lesser included offense; remedial statutes should be construed broadly; equal protection concerns	Court: Affirmed — §1170.95 applies only to murder; attempted murder convictions are statutorily ineligible for §1170.95 relief
Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying without appointing counsel	People: Denial correct as a matter of law because petitioner not eligible	Wright: did not press this claim on appeal (did request counsel in petition)	Court: Noting counsel error would be state‑law error subject to Watson harmless‑error review, but any error was harmless because Wright is ineligible as a matter of law

People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (describing SB 1437’s narrowing of accomplice liability under felony‑murder and its abrogation of imputed malice under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (explaining §1170.95 procedure and prima facie inquiry using the record of conviction)
People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held §1170.95 relief limited to murder and does not include attempted murder)
People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (same conclusion that §1170.95 does not reach attempted murder)
People v. Medrano, 42 Cal.App.5th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (concluded SB 1437 affects attempted‑murder liability prospectively on direct appeal but agreed §1170.95 relief is limited to murder)
People v. Love, 55 Cal.App.5th 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (reaffirmed that SB 1437 and §1170.95 do not eliminate natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability for attempted murder)