People v. Ayala CA4/3

DISCUSSION

As noted at the outset, our analysis in this case is guided by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Curiel, which made it clear that the intent to kill, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Curiel also elucidated the requirements for imposing murder liability on the theory of direct aiding and abetting. In

3 light of that decision, we conclude the trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition at the prima facie stage of the proceedings. Appellant’s claim for resentencing is grounded in Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which narrowed the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder in California. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-4.) As relevant here, SB 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences theory for that offense by providing that “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3).) SB 1437 also led to the enactment of section 1172.6 , which is the procedural mechanism for challenging a murder conviction based on vicarious liability. To obtain relief under that section, the defendant must show 1) he was prosecuted for…