People v. Sanchez CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the court erred when it made its decision without first appointing counsel or allowing briefing. The People respond the court did not err because it correctly concluded defendant, as a direct aider and abettor who acted with the intent to kill, was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. A. Senate Bill 1437 Senate Bill 1437, which became effective on January 1, 2019, revised the felony- murder rule in California “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).) The bill amended section 188, which defines malice, and section 189, which defines the degrees of murder, to address felony-murder liability; it also added section 1170.95, which provides a procedure by which those convicted of

3 murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-4; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959-960 (Lewis); People v. Gutierrez-Salazar (2019)…