People v. Garcia

Filed 11/4/20

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B300163

(Super. Ct. No. F000270432002)

Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

OSCAR ARMANDO

GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A violent criminal street gang, Paso 13, gave a “green light”

to kill Raul Mosqueda, a past associate of Paso 13 who was

friendly with members of a rival gang. Mosqueda was

subsequently assaulted by seven persons, including two members

and one associate of Paso 13. Appellant Oscar Armando Garcia,

a member of the gang, participated in the assault. The attackers

punched and kicked Mosqueda until he lay helpless on the floor.

Appellant directed the other gang member, David Rey, to stab

the victim. Rey fatally stabbed Mosqueda four times in the chest.

While Mosqueda was dying on the floor, appellant taunted him.

Although this could have been a first degree murder, appellant

was convicted by a jury of second degree murder.

Appellant was convicted in 1998. Pursuant to a new

statute, Penal Code section 1170.95,1 in 2019 appellant filed a

petition to vacate his murder conviction. He sought an

evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution would have the

burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was

ineligible for relief. (Id., subd. (d)(3).) Appellant alleged that he

1) “did not, with the intent to kill, aid [or] abet . . . the actual

killer”; 2) was not a “major participant” in the murder; 3) did not

act with “reckless indifference to human [life]”; and 4) could not

presently be convicted of murder.

Appellant’s allegations conflict with the evidence presented

at trial. As we shall explain, the Legislature surely did not

intend that appellant would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing

to retry the underlying criminal case against him. We affirm the

order denying his petition.

Procedural Background

In 1998 appellant was convicted by a jury of second degree

murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

(§§ 187, subd. (a), 189.) He was also convicted of conspiracy to

commit assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily

injury. (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 245, subd. (a)(1), now (a)(4).) The

jury found true an allegation that he had committed the murder

for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)

He was sentenced to prison for 15 years to life. In a 2001

nonpublished opinion, People v. Garcia et al. (July 23, 2001,

B126854) (Garcia), we affirmed the judgment of conviction as to

appellant and his codefendants: Sergio Ortiz, David Rey,

Gregory Vived, Jr., and Monte Weatherington.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2

Section 1170.95 was added to the Penal Code by Senate Bill

No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 1437), which became

effective on January 1, 2019. (See Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) If a

defendant has previously been convicted of murder under the

felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences

doctrine and qualifies for relief under section 1170.95, the new

statute permits the defendant to petition to vacate the conviction

and obtain resentencing on any remaining counts. One of the

criteria for relief is that the defendant could not presently be

convicted of murder because of changes made by S.B. 1437. (§

1170.95, subd. (a)(3).) To obtain the evidentiary hearing

appellant seeks, he must make a “prima facie showing” that he

satisfies the statutory criteria. (Id., subd. (c).)

The trial court denied the petition because appellant had

failed to make a prima facie showing that, as a result of changes

made by S.B. 1437, he could not presently be convicted of murder.

(§ 1170.95, subds. (a)(3), (c).) We conclude that appellant’s

showing did not rise to the required “prima facie” level. The

statement of facts in our 2001 opinion establishes that, after the

effective date of S.B. 1437, appellant could be convicted of second

degree murder as a direct aider and abettor of the killing of

Mosqueda. Our conclusion is based on evidence that appellant

directed the actual killer, David Rey, to stab the victim. We

reject the Attorney General’s concession “that the denial of

appellant’s petition should be reversed” because he made the

requisite prima facie showing.

Holding

We hold that where, as here, the record of conviction

contains substantial evidence based on which a reasonable trier

of fact could find the petitioner guilty of murder beyond a

3

reasonable doubt under current law despite the changes made by

S.B. 1437, the petitioner has failed to carry his burden of making

a prima facie showing that he could not presently be convicted of

murder because of changes made by S.B. 1437. (§ 1170.95, subds.

(a)(3), (c).) The petition must be denied even though the

assertions in the petition, if true, would satisfy the statutory

criteria for relief.

Facts

The facts are taken from the statement of facts at pages 2-5

of our nonpublished 2001 opinion, which was attached as

“Exhibit A” to appellant’s petition:

“Paso Robles 13 (Paso 13) is a criminal street gang.

Mosqueda, whose moniker is ‘dreamer,’ was a past associate of

Paso 13. Mosqueda was friendly with the members of Nameless

Crew Style (NCS), a rival gang that was engaged in ‘warfare’

with Paso 13. . . . Paso 13 put out a ‘green light’ on Mosqueda,

which meant that he was ‘free game’ to kill. [David] Rey and

[appellant] were members of Paso 13, and [Sergio] Ortiz

associated with the gang.

“ [¶] [¶]

“During the evening of April 12, 1998, Reginald Calhoun

went to the trailer park residence of Ortiz and [Monte]

Weatherington. [Appellant and other persons were present]

there. Mosqueda became the subject of conversation, and

everyone was saying, ‘Hey, we want to kick dreamer’s ass.’

“Calhoun was paged by [Gregory] Vived[, Jr.]. Calhoun

telephoned Vived, who said that Mosqueda was going to be at a

party in Paso Robles. . . .

“Calhoun, [Manuel] Preciado, and [other persons, including

appellant,] drove to the Paso Robles party in three cars. Rey was

4

the sole passenger in a car driven by [appellant]. Rey was armed

with a knife that he displayed to [appellant] inside the car.

[Italics added.] Rey put the knife in his pocket. At the trailer

park, Rey had not displayed the knife or mentioned that he

possessed it.

“After parking their cars in Paso Robles, Calhoun,

Preciado, and [other persons, including appellant,] walked to the

apartment where the party was occurring. Weatherington

knocked on the front door. A female opened the door, and

Weatherington asked to speak to ‘dreamer.’ Mosqueda came to

the door and said, ‘What do you guys want?’ Weatherington told

him to come outside. Mosqueda said, ‘We don’t want no problems

here.’ Mosqueda closed the door, and another person locked it.

Calhoun picked up a potted plant and threw it through a plate-

glass window. Rey and Weatherington kicked the front door

open. Calhoun, Preciado, and [other persons, including

appellant,] ran through the doorway into the apartment. They

were saying, ‘Get your beating like a man,’ and ‘You know what

time it is. You know it’s up.’ Everyone inside ‘just started

scattering.’ Mosqueda retreated into a bathroom and tried to

close the door. Calhoun testified that he and Rey pulled

Mosqueda out into the hallway, but other witnesses testified that

Weatherington did the pulling. Calhoun and [other persons,

including appellant,] punched Mosqueda in the hallway. There

was ‘a big commotion of bodies’ and people were screaming.

“ [¶]

“Mosqueda fell to the floor and was lying on his side

against a wall. [Appellant] said to Rey, ‘You got a knife. You got

5

a knife. Stick him. Stick him.’ [Italics added.2] Rey stabbed

Mosqueda four times in the chest. Mosqueda crawled out of the

hallway ‘like a baby’ on his hands and knees with blood on his

face, chest, and stomach. Rey, Vived, [appellant], Ortiz, and

Calhoun were ‘around him’ and were punching and kicking him.

People in the background were saying, ‘Leave him alone. He’s

knocked out.[’] Mosqueda fell to his side. Rey, Vived, [appellant],

Ortiz, and Calhoun continued to hit and kick him. [Appellant]

said, ‘Now what’s up dreamer? . . . Now you ain’t talking. You’re

not saying nothing now, are you?’ . . .

“Later that night, Preciado, Ortiz, and Weatherington met

[appellant] in a parking lot. [Appellant] told them that Rey had

stabbed Mosqueda ‘penitentiary style, real quick,’ and that

anyone who said ‘anything to the cops’ would ‘get bumped off’ in

prison. [Appellant] said that Rey ‘had got his stripes.’ This

meant that Rey had earned respect from other gang members

and ‘was up at the top with the big boys . . . .’

“ [¶]

“An expert on criminal street gangs testified that the

killing of Mosqueda had benefited Paso 13 because it had ‘slowed

down’ the escalation in violence between Paso 13 and NCS and

had ‘put [Paso 13] back on top.’”

2 During closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor

emphasized appellant’s statement: “Reggie Calhoun . . . saw

[appellant] there hitting Raul Mosqueda, and he heard

[appellant] say, ‘Stick him, stick him.’” Calhoun testified under a

grant of immunity. During closing argument, appellant’s counsel

said: “In order to rise to the level of second-degree murder, there

has to be an intent to kill . . . . The only thing . . . that’s in

evidence relative to [appellant] in that regard, . . . is the alleged

statement, ‘Stick him, stick him.’”

6

Trial Court’s Ruling

The trial court considered the statement of facts in our

2001 opinion. It ruled that appellant was not eligible for relief

because he had failed to make a prima facie showing that, as a

result of S.B. 1437’s changes to the Penal Code, he could not

presently be convicted of second degree murder. The court said,

“I’m taking into consideration that [appellant] was aware of the

knife that was used by Mr. Rey in perpetration of the . . .

stabbing; [and] that [appellant] purportedly said, ‘stick him, stick

him’ during the stabbing or prior to the stabbing . . . .”

S.B. 1437

“Under the felony-murder rule as it existed prior to Senate

Bill 1437, a defendant who intended to commit a specified felony

could be convicted of murder for a killing during the felony, or

attempted felony, without further examination of his or her

mental state. [Citation.] . . . [¶] Independent of the felony-

murder rule, the natural and probable consequences doctrine

rendered a defendant liable for murder if he or she aided and

abetted the commission of a criminal act (a target offense), and a

principal in the target offense committed murder (a nontarget

offense) that, even if unintended, was a natural and probable

consequence of the target offense. [Citation.]” (People v.

Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 247-248; see also People v.

Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 158 [“‘under the natural and

probable consequences doctrine, an aider and abettor is guilty not

only of the intended crime, but also “for any other offense that

was a ‘natural and probable consequence’ of the crime aided and

abetted”’”].)

In S.B. 1437 the Legislature declared, “It is necessary to

amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable

7

consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that

murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual

killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major

participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless

indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)

To achieve this goal, S.B. 1437 amended section 189, insofar as it

pertains to the felony-murder rule, to add subdivision (e), which

provides: “A participant in the perpetration or attempted

perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death

occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven:

(1) The person was the actual killer. (2) The person was not the

actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted,

counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted

the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree.

(3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony

and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described

in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 3.)

S.B. 1437 also amended section 188 to add subdivision

(a)(3), which provides, “Except as stated in subdivision (e) of

Section 189, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a

crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be

imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a

crime.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 2.) The Legislature declared, “A

person’s culpability for murder must be premised upon that

person’s own actions and subjective mens rea.” (Id., § 1, subd.

(g).) Because of the amendment of section 188, an aider and

abettor cannot be convicted of murder under the natural and

probable consequences doctrine. (See People v. Offley (2020) 48

Cal.App.5th 588, 594 (Offley) [“The effect of the new law was to

8

eliminate liability for murder under the natural and probable

consequences doctrine”].)

Section 1170.95, added by S.B. 1437, gives retroactive effect

to the changes in sections 188 and 189. It provides, “A person

convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and

probable consequences theory may file a petition with the court

that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder

conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining

counts when” certain conditions apply. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).)

One of the conditions is that “[t]he petitioner could not be

convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to

Section 188 or 189 made [by S.B. 1437] effective January 1,

2019.” (Id., subd. (a)(3).) The petition must include a declaration

by the petitioner showing that he is eligible for the relief afforded

by section 1170.95. (Id., subd. (b)(1)(A).)

“The court shall review the petition and determine if the

petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner

falls within the provisions of [section 1170.95]. . . . If the

petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled

to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.”

(§ 1170.95, subd. (c), italics added.) “Within 60 days after the

order to show cause has issued, the court shall hold a hearing to

determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and to recall

the sentence and resentence the petitioner . . . .” (Id., subd.

(d)(1).) “At the hearing . . . , the burden of proof shall be on the

prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the

petitioner is ineligible for resentencing. . . . The prosecutor and

the petitioner may rely on the record of conviction or offer new or

additional evidence to meet their respective burdens.” (Id., subd.

(d)(3).)

9

Meaning of “Prima Facie Showing”

Section 1170.95, subdivision (c) requires a petitioner to

make a “prima facie showing” of entitlement to relief. “A prima

facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the position of

the party in question.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)

25 Cal.4th 826, 851.) “‘[P]rima facie evidence is that which

suffices for the proof of a particular fact, until contradicted and

overcome by other evidence. It may . . . be contradicted, and

other evidence is always admissible for that purpose.’” (In re

Raymond G. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 964, 972, quoting from Vaca

Valley & C.L. Railroad v. Mansfield (1890) 84 Cal. 560, 566.)

Thus, in determining whether the petitioner has made a prima

facie showing of entitlement to relief under section 1170.95, the

trial court is not required to accept the allegations in the petition

as true. “It would be a gross misuse of judicial resources to

require the issuance of an order to show cause [under section

1170.95, subdivision (c)] . . . based solely on the allegations of the

petition, which frequently are erroneous, when even a cursory

review of the court file would show as a matter of law that the

petitioner is not eligible for relief.” (Couzens, Bigelow & Prickett,

Sentencing California Crimes (The Rutter Group Oct. 2019

update) § 23:51, p. 5.)

Section 1170.95, subdivision (c) suggests that a petitioner’s

allegations may be contradicted. The subdivision says, “The

prosecutor shall file and serve a response within 60 days of

service of the petition . . . .” The prosecutor’s response would be

of little utility if the trial court must take the petitioner’s

allegations at face value in determining whether he has made a

prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.

10

Standard of Review

Whether a petitioner has made the requisite prima facie

showing is a predominantly legal question. We therefore

independently review the trial court’s ruling that appellant failed

to make a prima facie showing. (See Smiley v. Citibank, N.A.

(1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 146 [“Independent review is called for

when the underlying determination involves a purely legal

question or a predominantly legal mixed question”]; State v.

Ernst (2005) 283 Wis.2d 300, 311 [“Whether a party has met the

burden of establishing a prima facie case presents a question of

law which we review de novo”].)

The Trial Court Properly Considered the

Statement of Facts in our 2001 Opinion

Appellant contends that, in ruling that he had not made a

prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under section

1170.95, the trial court improperly relied on the statement of

facts in our 2001 opinion. We disagree. At the evidentiary

hearing conducted after the trial court has issued an order to

show cause, “[t]he prosecutor and the petitioner may rely on the

record of conviction . . . to meet their respective burdens.” (Id.,

subd. (d)(3).) It follows that, in determining whether the

petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to

relief, the court may consider the record of conviction. “A court of

appeal opinion . . . is part of the appellant’s record of conviction.

[Citations.] Accordingly, it [is] proper for [us] to consider our

[prior] opinion . . . in determining whether he had made a prima

facie showing of eligibility for relief under section 1170.95 or

whether he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.” (People v.

Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 333 (Verdugo), review

granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493; see also People v. Lewis (2020)

11

43 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1136, fn. 7, review granted Mar. 18, 2020,

S260598 [for purposes of section 1170.95, “[t]he record of

conviction includes a reviewing court’s opinion”];3 People v.

Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165, 180-181 [“an appellate court

decision . . . can be relied upon to determine the nature of a prior

conviction because it may disclose the facts upon which the

conviction was based. [Citation.] We held in [People v.] Woodell

[(1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 457,] ‘that appellate opinions, in general,

are part of the record of conviction that the trier of fact

may consider in determining whether a conviction qualifies under

the sentencing scheme at issue’ ”]; Woodell, supra, at p. 457 [“If

the appellate court did state the pertinent facts, a trier of fact is

entitled to find that those statements accurately reflect the trial

record”]; People v. Hicks (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 275, 286 [“the

appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction which the

court properly used in determining defendant's eligibility” for

resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012]; In re

3 In Lewis the Supreme Court limited briefing and

argument to two issues, only one of which is relevant to the

present appeal: “May superior courts consider the record of

conviction in determining whether a defendant has made a prima

facie showing of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section

1170.95?” (People v. Lewis (Mar. 18, 2020, No. S260598) [2020

Cal. LEXIS 1946, at *1].) In Verdugo further action was

“deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue

in [Lewis].” (People v. Verdugo (Mar. 18, 2020, No. S260493)

[2020 Cal. LEXIS 2057, at *1].) Pending review and filing of the

Supreme Court’s opinion, Lewis and Verdugo have “no . . .

precedential effect, and may be cited for potentially persuasive

value only.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1).)

12

Richardson (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 647, 667 [“Our opinion on the

1992 evasion conviction stated petitioner's victims were

occupants of a mobilehome that was damaged by petitioner’s

crash. Our opinion is evidence in the record of conviction that

establishes the victims of the 1992 evasion conviction were not

accomplices, and therefore the evasion conviction qualifies as a

prior strike”].)

The trial court’s consideration of our prior opinion’s

statement of facts was especially appropriate because the opinion

was attached as “Exhibit A” to appellant’s petition. In his

declaration in support of the petition, appellant stated, “A version

of the statement of the case and facts is attached hereto as

Exhibit A.”

Jury Instructions

The jury instructions set forth two theories upon which the

jury could have convicted appellant of second degree murder: 1)

he aided and abetted an assault likely to produce great bodily

injury, and the murder of Mosqueda was a natural and probable

consequence of that crime; 2) he conspired to commit an assault

likely to produce great bodily injury, and the murder of Mosqueda

“was a natural and probable consequence of the agreed upon

criminal objective of that conspiracy.” The jury was not

instructed that it could convict appellant of murder if it found

that he had directly aided and abetted the murder by telling Rey

to stab Mosqueda. Thus, the jury necessarily convicted appellant

of murder under the natural and probable consequences theory,

which is no longer a valid theory because of S.B. 1437’s

amendment of section 188. (Offley, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p.

594.)

13

The jury instructions show that appellant satisfied the first

criterion for section 1170.95 relief – he was “convicted of . . .

murder under a natural and probable consequences theory.” (Id.,

subd. (a).) The instructions do not show that he made a prima

facie showing of the last criterion – he “could not be convicted

of . . . murder because of changes to Section 188 . . . made [by S.B.

1437] effective January 1, 2019.” (Id., subd. (a)(3).) The absence

of a jury instruction on murder based on a theory of direct aiding

and abetting does not mean that appellant could not presently be

convicted of murder under this theory.

Appellant Failed to Make a Prima Facie Showing that

He Could Not Be Convicted of Second Degree Murder

Based on our 2001 opinion’s statement of facts, under S.B.

1437 appellant could still be convicted of second degree murder

because he directed Rey to stab Mosqueda. This makes appellant

a direct aider and abettor of the killing. The natural and

probable consequences doctrine does not apply to this class of

defendants. “Liability for intentional, target offenses is known as

‘direct’ aider and abettor liability; liability for unintentional,

nontarget offenses is known as the ‘“‘natural and probable

consequences’ doctrine.”’” (In re Loza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 797,

801.) “[S.B. 1437] did not . . . alter the law regarding the criminal

liability of direct aiders and abettors of murder because such

persons necessarily ‘know and share the murderous intent of the

actual perpetrator.’ [Citations.] One who directly aids and abets

another who commits murder is thus liable for murder under the

new law just as he or she was liable under the old law.” (Offley,

supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at pp. 595-596.)4

4 CALCRIM No. 401 is the current jury instruction for

direct aiding and abetting. It provides in relevant part: “To

14

In his declaration in support of the petition for relief under

S.B. 1437, appellant claimed that he was not a direct aider and

abettor. He alleged, “I was convicted of second degree murder

pursuant to the natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . .”

“I could not now be convicted of . . . second degree murder

because of changes made [t]o Penal Code section 188 . . . .” “I did

not, with the intent to kill, aid, abet, counsel, command, induce,

solicit, request, or assist the actual killer in the commission of

murder . . . .”

In reply to the People’s opposition to the petition,

appellant’s counsel presented a factual scenario contrary to the

statement of facts in our 2001 opinion: “During the assault, one

of the attackers, Mr. Rey, stabbed the victim with a knife,

causing death. [Appellant] had no knowledge that Mr. Rey was

carrying a knife before the attack. At no point did [appellant]

encourage Mr. Rey to ‘stick’ or ‘stab’ the victim. [Appellant] did

not intend that the victim be killed.”

The Attorney General recognizes that “[t]he evidence does

not appear to support appellant’s . . . contention . . . that he could

not be convicted of murder under . . . amended section 188.” The

Attorney General explains: “The stabbing . . . was not

spontaneous or accidental, but occurred only after appellant’s

prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and

abetting that crime, the People must prove that: 1. The

perpetrator committed the crime; 2. The defendant knew that the

perpetrator intended to commit the crime; 3. Before or during the

commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet

the perpetrator in committing the crime; AND 4. The defendant's

words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator's

commission of the crime.”

15

encouragement and instigation and during a seven-to-one beating

of the victim. Based on this evidence, it is clear appellant was a

direct aider and abettor who acted either with express malice, or

at least with implied malice, i.e., he intended to perform an act he

knew presented a danger to the life of another but acted in

conscious disregard of that danger.”

“However,” the Attorney General continues, “there appears

to be no reason why as a matter of law such a claim [appellant’s

claim that he could not be convicted of murder under amended

section 188] must fail based on appellant’s record of

conviction . . . .” “Here, neither the jury instructions nor the

verdicts indicate that appellant was necessarily convicted of

murder based on a theory of actual malice as required by . . .

amended section 188 for a direct aider and abettor.” “The trial

court’s denial of appellant’s petition was predicated on

consideration of the facts of the crime and finding that he could

nevertheless be convicted of murder under a currently valid

theory. Although that is the correct question, it necessarily

involves the weighing of facts and evidence that must be done at

a section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3) evidentiary hearing[, which

is conducted only after the petitioner has made a prima facie

showing of eligibility].” “In short, if . . . the superior court

discovers that the record of conviction shows ‘as a matter of law’

that petitioner’s averments are false and that he is ineligible for

relief, an order to show cause must not issue. [Citation.]

Otherwise, the superior court must issue an order to show cause

and permit a hearing to determine the facts.” “[T]he trial court

erred because the facts set forth in this Court’s prior opinion did

not demonstrate as a matter of law that appellant was ineligible.”

16

The Attorney General has misconstrued section 1170.95.

For purposes of determining whether a petitioner has made a

prima facie showing of eligibility for relief, the statute does not

require the trial court to accept the petitioner’s averments unless

“the record of conviction shows ‘as a matter of law’ that

petitioner’s averments are false and that he is ineligible for

relief.” The Attorney General is reading into the statute a

limitation neither expressly nor impliedly required by its

language. “Both [the California Supreme] [C]ourt and the high

court have cautioned against reading into a statute language it

does not contain or elements that do not appear on its face.”

(Martinez v. Regents of University of California (2010) 50 Cal.4th

1277, 1295.)

Section 1170.95 clearly and unambiguously requires a

prima facie showing that the petitioner “could not be convicted of

. . . second degree murder because of changes to Section 188 . . . .”

(Id., subd. (a)(3), italics added.) “Could” is “used . . . as an

alternative to can suggesting less force or certainty.” (Webster’s

3d New Internat. Dict. (1981) p. 517.) In view of the evidence

that appellant directed Rey to “stick” the victim with a knife, as a

matter of law appellant could be convicted of second degree

murder as a direct aider and abettor despite the changes to

section 188.

The command to stab Mosqueda was given by appellant.

He was the only person present who knew Rey had a knife. Rey

displayed the knife to him while appellant was driving Rey to the

Paso Robles party. Nevertheless, it is possible that the jury did

not credit the witnesses who testified that they had heard

17

appellant say, “Stick him. Stick him.”5 It is also possible that the

jury believed appellant made this statement but intended only to

wound Mosqueda, not kill him. But we should not speculate

what the jury might have believed. The jury neither expressly

nor impliedly found that appellant did not harbor the specific

intent to kill when he allegedly told Rey to stab Mosqueda. In

the absence of such a finding, appellant could be convicted of

murder as a direct aider and abettor because a reasonable trier of

fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he said, “Stick

him. Stick him,” and that he intended to kill Mosqueda when he

made this statement.

We need not resort, as the Attorney General claims, to a

“weighing of facts and evidence” to reach this conclusion. If the

5 In his opening brief appellant asserts: “[I]n a chaotic

scene populated by many people, a number of whom were

involved in the assault and related fracases, only two witnesses

claimed to have heard the damning statement. One of these was

Calhoun, a man who demonstrably ‘hated’ appellant, and had a

history of antagonism towards him, including the witness’

previous attack on appellant’s car with a baseball bat. . . . The

other was Rey, the actual killer, who was upset at appellant for

having identified him to police . . . .” Calhoun and Rey both

testified at trial. During closing argument, appellant’s counsel

told the jury: “The only other person [besides Calhoun] that says

anything about that [appellant’s alleged statement, ‘Stick him.

Stick him’] was David Rey. I submit to you David Rey found a

convenient reason and a way to try to spread some blame out.”

“Mr. Rey never told a soul about that until the time of trial. . . .

[¶] If it was credible, why didn’t Mr. Rey bring it up earlier?

Why didn’t he say to anybody he heard it? He only picked up on

that after Mr. Calhoun testified, and that was a convenient thing

for [Rey] to grab onto.”

18

jury had been instructed on direct aiding and abetting and had

based its murder conviction on this theory, the conviction would

have been upheld on appeal because it would have been

supported by substantial evidence. (See People v. Stanley (1995)

10 Cal.4th 764, 792 [“On appeal we review the whole record in

the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it

discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is

reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which

a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt”].) Since substantial evidence supports a

murder conviction based on a direct aiding and abetting theory,

appellant’s conclusory allegations in his petition do not constitute

a prima facie showing that he could not be convicted of murder

based on this theory. No weighing of the evidence is involved in

applying the substantial evidence test. (People v. Marsh (1959)

170 Cal.App.2d 284, 288; People v. Otterman (1957) 154

Cal.App.2d 193, 202.)

Our application of the substantial evidence test is

supported by People v. Duke (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 113. There,

the court considered the nature of the prosecution’s burden at the

evidentiary hearing conducted after the petitioner has made a

prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under section 1170.95.

The court concluded: “The prosecution bears the burden ‘to

prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is ineligible

for resentencing.’ (§ 1170.95, subd. (d)(3).) The primary

requirement for eligibility for resentencing under section 1170.95

is that ‘[t]he petitioner could not be convicted of first or second

degree murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made

effective January 1, 2019.’ (§ 1170.95, subd. (a)(3).) To carry its

burden, the prosecution must therefore prove beyond a

19

reasonable doubt that the defendant could still have been

convicted of murder under the new law—in other words, that a

reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of murder with

the requisite mental state for that degree of murder. This is

essentially identical to the standard of substantial evidence, in

which the reviewing court asks ‘ “whether, on the entire record, a

rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. . . .”’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 123.)

We disagree with the following holding of People v. Drayton

(2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 968, relating to the petitioner’s initial

burden of making a prima facie showing: “We conclude the trial

court should accept the assertions in the petition as true unless

facts in the record conclusively refute them as a matter of law. If,

accepting the petitioner’s asserted facts as true, he or she meets

the requirements for relief listed in section 1170.95, subdivision

(a), then the trial court must issue an order to show cause.”

Drayton failed to take into consideration the substantial evidence

test explained above. The trial court should not accept the

petitioner’s assertions as true and issue an order to show cause if

substantial evidence in the record supports a murder conviction

under current law. The petitioner’s assertions need not be

“conclusively refut[ed] . . . as a matter of law.” (Ibid.)

Appellant’s status as a direct aider and abettor is

supported by evidence in addition to his statement, “Stick him.

Stick him.” Appellant was a member of Paso 13, a criminal street

gang. According to the statement of facts in our 2001 opinion,

“Paso 13 put out a ‘green light’ on Mosqueda,” a former associate

of the gang who was friendly with members of “a rival gang that

was engaged in ‘warfare’ with Paso 13.” The “green light” “meant

that [Mosqueda] was ‘free game’ to kill.” (Garcia, supra,

20

B126854, at p. 2; see People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th

263, 278 [“a gang member . . . may be made subject of a

‘green light,’ which . . . is authorization from authority figures in

the gang to kill that person”].) Since Mosqueda had been “green-

lighted” by Paso 13 and appellant was a member of the gang, it is

reasonable to infer that appellant intended to kill Mosqueda

when he directed Rey to stab the victim. In addition, since Rey

was also a member of Paso 13 and therefore must have known

that Mosqueda had been “green-lighted” by the gang, it is

reasonable to infer that appellant believed that Rey would

interpret his “stick him” command as an order to kill. The jury

found true allegations that appellant and Rey had committed the

murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd.

(b)(1).)

Moreover, appellant’s conduct after the stabbing indicates

that he harbored an intent to kill. Appellant must have seen Rey

stab Mosqueda four times in the chest. Appellant said that Rey

had stabbed Mosqueda “‘penitentiary style, real quick.’” (Garcia,

supra, B126854, at p. 4.) Although appellant should have known

that Mosqueda was mortally wounded, he did not express shock

or dismay. Instead, he taunted the dying Mosqueda. Appellant

said, “‘Now what’s up dreamer? . . . Now you ain’t talking.

You’re not saying nothing now, are you?’” (Id. at p. 4.) Later that

night, appellant expressed unqualified approval of the killing:

“[Appellant] said that Rey ‘had got his stripes.’ This meant that

Rey had earned respect from other gang members and ‘was up at

the top with the big boys . . . .’” (Id. at p. 5.)

Appellant also could presently be convicted of murder

under a theory of implied malice. “Implied malice does not

require an intent to kill. Malice is implied when a person

21

willfully does an act, the natural and probable consequences of

which are dangerous to human life, and the person knowingly

acts with conscious disregard for the danger to life that the act

poses.” (People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 653.) S.B.

1437 did not repeal the law imposing criminal liability for

implied malice murder.

Appellant willfully participated in a brutal gang assault

upon a person who had been “green-lighted” by the gang. He told

another gang member to stab the victim. The natural and

probable consequences of appellant’s acts were dangerous to

human life, and the evidence supports a finding that he acted

with conscious disregard for human life. (See People v. Guillen

(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 934, 983-992 [evidence sufficient to

convict jail inmates of implied malice murder because they

participated in a brutal assault upon another inmate who was

believed to be a despised child molester].)

If appellant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement

to relief under section 1170.95, almost every defendant convicted

of murder who, like appellant, “artfully pleads” his section

1170.95 petition in conclusory language, and who was not the

actual killer, gets an evidentiary hearing where he can retry the

case. In evaluating whether or not a petitioner has made a prima

facie showing, the trial court must utilize common sense. It is

not required to accept a petitioner’s conclusory declarations that

conflict with the evidence presented at trial.

There is a gatekeeping function to be performed here. (See

Verdugo, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 331 [section 1170.95

“indicates the Legislature’s intent that the superior court perform

a substantive gatekeeping function, screening out clearly

ineligible petitioners before devoting additional resources to the

22

resentencing process”].) Once a petitioner makes a prima facie

showing, the evidentiary gate is open since there appears to be no

limit on retrying the case. The newly enacted statute allows the

“prosecutor and the petitioner” to “offer new or additional

evidence.” (§ 1170.95, subd. (d)(3).) The burden is on the

prosecutor to “prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the

petitioner is ineligible for resentencing.” (Ibid.)

The gate in the instant matter should remain closed. The

ameliorative statute was not designed to benefit a gang member

who participated in a brutal gang assault upon a helpless victim

“green-lighted” by the gang and who, according to the trial

testimony of percipient witnesses, directed the actual killer to

stab the victim. Despite appellant’s averment in his petition that

he “did not, with the intent to kill, aid [or] abet . . . the actual

killer,” substantial evidence supports a murder conviction based

on a direct aiding and abetting theory. Appellant therefore did

not carry his burden of making a prima facie showing that he

could not presently be convicted of murder because of changes to

section 188 made by S.B. 1437.

Conclusion

In determining whether a petitioner has made a prima

facie showing of entitlement to relief under section 1170.95, the

courts should not ignore the evidence in the record of conviction

that shows the petitioner is ineligible for relief. Where, as here,

the record of conviction contains substantial evidence based on

which a reasonable trier of fact could presently find petitioner

guilty of murder despite the changes made by S.B. 1437, it would

be a waste of judicial resources to require a full-blown

evidentiary hearing at which the court may rely on the record of

conviction. (§ 1170.95, subd. (d)(3).) Accordingly, the trial court

23

did not err in refusing to issue an order to show cause and

conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

The order denying appellant’s petition for relief under

section 1170.95 is affirmed.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.

24

YEGAN, Concurring:

The Court of Appeal should not exalt form over substance

and we should not require the Superior Court to participate in a

“fool’s errand.” By “fool’s errand,” I mean that the goal is, in all

probability, unattainable. In its zeal to “right” what it perceives

is to be “wrong,” the Legislature allows a retroactive, and

theoretical remedy for some defendants convicted of murder.

This has severe adverse consequences to the administration of

justice. Even though in its infancy, the courts are already

deluged with petitions to “retry” some murder cases. There are

hundreds, if not thousands, of these types of cases.

The theoretical hearing may extend for days, perhaps even

longer, and there appears to be no limitation on what a petitioner

can introduce as “new” evidence to obtain relief. (Pen. Code, §

1170.95, subd. (d)(3).) A literal and expansive reading of the

statute does not foreclose a petitioner from introducing alibi,

mental defenses, duress, and any other evidence to impeach

either express or implied factual findings in the earlier trial. In

my view, this has not been properly thought out. The

Legislature’s decision to provide for retroactivity is akin to what

Justice Macklin Fleming referred to as: “The moving finger

rewrites the past.” (Fleming, The Price of Perfect Justice (1974)

pp. 13-21.) Our criminal courts are already over-burdened and to

now add new remedies to impeach presumptively correct final

judgments seems counter-productive. And with the passage of

time, here 22 years, the People will have evidentiary problems in

carrying it’s beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof.

There must, of necessity, come a time when litigation

should cease. This should, at the very least, be recognized and

considered by the Legislature before it “tinkers” with long final

1

judgments. Perhaps the perceived problem could have been

remedied administratively by relaxing parole rules or simply

changing the punishment for some murders. As Justice Fleming

has said, “An important consequence of the development of

retroactivity has been the blurring of the authority of a final

judgment. The sharp focus of a judgment as a final

determination in an action of the right of the parties has faded

into an ambiguous depiction rendered in the style of subjective

impressionism.” (Fleming, The Price of Perfect Justice, supra, at

pp. 19-22.) Perhaps a subsequent Legislature will want to

further cut back on murder rules. Are we again ordered to

conduct a further round of evidentiary hearings in the pursuit of

“perfect justice?”

The concept of the “finality of judgment” should be a goal of

the criminal justice system. A judgment in a criminal action

should not have the “‘semblance’” of finality. (In re Clark (1993) 5

Cal.4th 750, 765-766.) “‘[W]ithout finality, the criminal law is

deprived of much of its deterrent effect.’” (In re Harris (1993) 5

Cal.4th 813, 831.) As Justice Harlan has said in his concurring

in part, dissenting in part in Mackey v. United States (1971) 401

U.S. 667, 691, “No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial

system, not society as a whole is benefited by a judgment

providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow

and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be

subject to fresh litigation . . . .” (See In re Harris, supra, at p.

831.) The California Legislature did not need this admonition.

Even though this is remedial legislation which should be

liberally construed, there must, of necessity be some limit to the

statute or else the Legislature would not have enumerated the

exceptions to the new statute. And, as indicated, petitioner can

2

seek to introduce “new” evidence. This too, of necessity, should

be subject to reasonable limits. (See Evid. Code, § 352.) And, as

indicated in the majority opinion, there is a gate keeping function

at play here. The gate should not be opened except upon a prima

facie showing.

Now, what are the “new” facts petitioner would attempt to

prove? Petitioner would tender an innocent explanation for the

historical evidence. Let us assume that he admits to being

present at the scene of the crime. He would minimize his

involvement with the gang, and say that he was unaware of the

“green light.” He did not go on a hunt to execute the “green

light.” He would deny that he punched or kicked the victim. He

would also deny that he directed the stabbing. He would deny

having taunted the victim. He would deny having congratulated

the actual cohort who did the stabbing. He would say that he did

not intend that the victim to be killed. He was “merely present.”

Perhaps petitioner could come up with another or further

explanation. Any such explanation will be 1. At variance with

the historical record; and 2. Be far-fetched. It would not comport

with common sense or how a street gang operates. Appellant is

not entitled to a retrial of his case.

Final Thoughts

I have been watching the flurry of cases where superior

court judges, all over the state, have ruled that the new statute is

unconstitutional. With the exception of Justices O’Rourke,

Poochigian, and Ramirez, the remaining justices all opine to the

contrary.

The statute has a serious flaw on a theory not previously

raised. The People of the State of California have a

constitutional right to trial by jury in criminal cases. (Cal. Const.

3

art. I, § 16; see, e.g., People v. Washington (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1061,

1086-1087.) This, of course, includes the right to have a jury

decide a case by verdict. The Legislature may not pass a statute

which has the effect of abolishing, curtailing, or interfering an

express constitutional right. In the guise of an “ameliorative”

retroactive resentencing statute, it may have retroactively

interfered with the People’s constitutional right at the initial trial

by voiding the jury verdict. It again may have interfered with the

constitutional right to jury trial by allowing a “retrial” to the

superior court, sitting without a jury.

The Legislature may reduce punishment for crime. It may

even allow the reduction to apply retroactively. But can it

tamper with a constitutional right afforded to the People? I do

not reach any conclusion on this issue on this appeal. A record on

this issue and briefing on this issue, is not here presented. But

make no mistake, this issue lurks beneath the calm surface of a

roiling constitutional sea.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

YEGAN, J.

4

Jacquelyn H. Duffy, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters,

Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri, Allison H. Chung, Deputy

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.