People v. Isaac CA2/2

facts.

2 and whatever materials had been submitted by the parties to the trial court.” (Ibid.) In February 2020, “[a]fter entertaining oral argument, the trial court denied defendant’s section [1172.6] petition.” (Isaac I, supra, B305378.) The trial court recited a list of evidence supporting its conclusion that “defendant was ‘a major participant’ who acted with ‘reckless indifference of life’” and “a direct aider and abettor who acted with intent to kill.” (Ibid.) It noted that “‘this was an armed takedown robbery of a bank’ [with] [‘]no effort to minimize violence. They robbed it in the middle of the day. They had to know there was an armed security guard.’ And, defendant had to have been aware ‘of the dangers of robbing a bank during working hours with an armed guard.’ [¶] Furthermore, defendant ‘was there, and he was present, and he was not outside as the getaway driver. . . . He was there in the bank. He was part of this well-orchestrated and planned robbery.’ [¶] The trial court also pointed to the evidence that the robbery was well planned: the robbers stole a car in the morning and then, after they left the bank, ‘within a short distance they switch[ed] cars.’ ‘Not only…