People v. Villa CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS.

The facts of the offenses are set forth in our prior opinion. Given the Attorney General’s concession, we find it unnecessary to repeat them here.

DISCUSSION

In People v. Lewis (2021)11 Cal.5th 952, 970-973, the Supreme Court clarified the role of trial courts in evaluating petitions for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court held that after appointment of counsel, the court may deny the petition at the prima facie stage where the record shows the petitioner is not eligible for resentencing as a matter of law. The court may not, however, engage in factfinding, weigh evidence, or make credibility determinations. (People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 968.) Here, the jury was instructed on direct aiding and abetting as well as conspiracy, currently valid theories of liability. However, the jury also was instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine arising out of an offense other than murder. As Villa argues and the Attorney General agrees, we cannot tell from this record whether the jury relied on the now impermissible theory of murder arising as a natural and probable consequence of committing a different offense. Thus, we cannot…