People v. Wright CA2/3
B311217A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 4, 2022Background
- In 2008 Wright drove near undercover sheriff’s deputies; Marcos R. emerged and fired at the deputies after Wright pointed him out; Wright was arrested and said he believed the deputies were rival gang members and had called Marcos while being chased.
- At trial the jury was instructed on direct aiding and abetting and the natural and probable consequences doctrine; Wright was convicted of two counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder and related assault and firearm/gang enhancements; sentenced to 40 years to life; judgment affirmed on appeal in 2011.
- On January 26, 2021 Wright filed a Penal Code § 1170.95 petition seeking vacatur of his attempted murder convictions; the superior court summarily denied the petition because, at that time, § 1170.95 was understood to apply only to murder, not attempted murder.
- A panel of this Court affirmed the denial, but the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back for reconsideration in light of Senate Bill No. 775.
- Senate Bill 775 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) amended § 1170.95 to expressly include attempted murder (and manslaughter); the parties and this Court agreed the amendment applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments like Wright’s.
- The Court reversed the summary denial, holding that (1) SB 775 applies retroactively, and (2) Wright is not categorically ineligible because the record does not conclusively show the jury found he personally formed intent to kill, so the petition must be remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings under amended § 1170.95.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 775’s amendment of § 1170.95 apply retroactively to petitions for nonfinal judgments? | SB 775 applies retroactively; People conceded retroactivity. | Wright argued the amendment should apply retroactively to him. | Yes. Under In re Estrada, SB 775 retroactively applies to nonfinal judgments; Wright’s appeal was not final when SB 775 took effect. |
| Did the trial court err by summarily denying Wright’s § 1170.95 petition because his convictions were for attempted murder? | People conceded the amendment covers attempted murder and that summary denial was improper where the record does not conclusively show personal intent to kill. | Wright argued he could have been convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and is eligible for relief. | The court reversed: Wright is not categorically excluded; summary denial improper; remand for appointment of counsel and further proceedings under amended § 1170.95. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (presumption that ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (Senate Bill 1437 limited accomplice liability under felony-murder and curtailed natural and probable consequences theory)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (procedural standards and effect of Senate Bill 1437 on murder liability and § 1170.95 relief)
- People v. Montes, 71 Cal.App.5th 1001 (2021) (SB 775’s applicability and effect on § 1170.95; attempted murder inclusion analysis)
- People v. Porter, 73 Cal.App.5th 644 (2022) (confirming SB 775 inclusion of attempted murder and remand procedures)
- People v. Vieira, 35 Cal.4th 264 (2005) (finality for retroactivity measured by time to seek U.S. Supreme Court review)