People v. Padilla CA4/3

DISCUSSION

Appellant seeks reversal on the basis the trial court improperly weighed the evidence at the prima facie stage of the proceedings. He contends there is nothing in the record of conviction to prove that the jury actually found he acted with the intent to kill so as to disqualify him from obtaining resentencing relief under section 1170.95. The Attorney General agrees, and so do we.

1 We judicially notice the record in the direct appeal and note that all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Appellant’s claim is grounded in Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which narrowed the scope of vicarious liability for murder in two ways. First, the law eliminated the natural and probable consequences theory for that crime 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).) Second, SB 1437 reigned in the felony murder rule so that it can only be applied to nonkillers if they aided and abetted the killer in committing first degree murder, or they were a major participant in the underlying felony and acted in a manner recklessly indifferent to human life. (§ 189, subd. (e).) By…