DISCUSSION

At the time of Colin’s plea, a defendant could be convicted under the theory that the defendant aided and abetted a crime of which attempted murder was a natural and probable consequence. (See People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 161 [discussing natural and probable consequences liability generally]; see also § 31.) It was not necessary to prove that the defendant intended that the attempted murder be committed or even that the defendant subjectively foresaw that attempted murder could result. (See Chiu, at pp. 161–162.) In 2019, the Legislature, through Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437), amended section 188 to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it applies to murder and to require, with certain exceptions under the felony-murder rule, that a defendant act with malice to be convicted of murder. (§ 188, subd. (a)(3).) In 2021, through Senate Bill No. 775 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) (Senate Bill 775), the Legislature clarified that the amendments made by Senate Bill 1437 were also intended to apply to attempted murder. Senate Bill 775 also amended former section 1170.95 to permit persons convicted by plea agreement of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to file a petition with the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and be resentenced. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) Under section 1172.6, a defendant convicted by plea of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine must attest to the following: “(1) A complaint,

3 information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under [a natural and probable consequences theory of attempted murder]. . . . [¶] (2) The petitioner was convicted of . . . attempted murder . . . following . . . a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of . . . attempted murder. [¶] (3) The petitioner could not presently be convicted of . . . attempted murder because of changes to [s]ection 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6, subds. (a)(1)–(a)(3), (b)(1).) After a facially sufficient petition is filed, the trial court determines whether the petitioner is prima facie eligible for relief. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.) “The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly meritless. . . . [¶] While the trial court may look at the record of conviction after the appointment of counsel to determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case for section [1172.6] relief, the prima facie inquiry under subdivision (c) is limited. . . . ‘[A] court should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.’ ” (Id. at p. 971.) If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing of eligibility, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 460.) We review de novo a trial court’s determination of whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing. (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52.) In the opening brief, Colin contends that the trial court engaged in impermissible fact-finding by relying on the preliminary hearing transcript to deny his section 1172.6 petition

4 at the prima facie stage. After briefing concluded in this case, our Supreme Court resolved a split in the Courts of Appeal regarding this issue and foreclosed Colin’s contention. In People v. Patton (Cal., Mar. 3, 2025, No. S279670) 2025 WL 666005, at page *10 (Patton), the Supreme Court held that a trial court may “reference the record of conviction [which includes the preliminary hearing transcript] . . . to ‘ “ ‘refut[e]’ ” ’ [citation] conclusory allegations in furtherance of its statutorily required screening function at that juncture of a section 1172.6 proceeding” without engaging in impermissible fact-finding, and may conclude, based upon its review, that the petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility. Accordingly, the trial court’s determination that Colin was ineligible for relief based on its review of the preliminary hearing transcript in this case was not error. However, following the Supreme Court’s directive to the Court of Appeal in Patton, in an abundance of caution we will remand the matter to the trial court with directions to consider an amended petition should Colin seek to file one within 30 days of the issuance of the remittitur. (Patton, supra, 2025 WL 666005, at p. *10.)

5

DISPOSITION

We remand the matter to the trial court with directions to consider an amended petition should Colin seek to file one within 30 days of the issuance of the remittitur. We otherwise affirm the trial court’s order denying Colin’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

WE CONCUR:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

BAKER, J.

6