Court Opinion

ID: 9828097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:06:01.670499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:05.113739
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/1/23 P. v. Robinson CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
 California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
                                     or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079032

 v.                                                                      (Super. Ct. No. FVA801386)

 KELLY ROBINSON,                                                         OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Shay Dinata-Hanson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Lynne G.

McGinnis and Susan Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and

Respondent.

                                                             1
                                               I.

                                      INTRODUCTION

       Defendant and appellant Kelly Robinson appeals from the trial court’s order

denying his petition to vacate his attempted murder conviction and for resentencing under
             1                                            2
Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95). On appeal, defendant argues the

trial court erred in summarily denying his petition because the record of conviction

suggested his allegations had potential merit. We conclude that the instructions did not

permit the jury to find defendant guilty of attempted premediated murder without finding

that he personally acted with malice aforethought. We thus affirm the trial court’s order.

                                              II.
                                                                        3
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       The shooting occurred in the early morning hours of July 31, 2008, in the

driveway of the residence of David Martin and Sharon Martin at 14221 Remington Court

in Fontana. Remington Court is a short street, terminating in two cul-de-sacs, and

       1
           All future statutory references are to the Penal Code.
       2
         Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 as
section 1172.6, with no substantive change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We cite to
section 1172.6 for ease of reference unless otherwise indicated.
       3
          The factual background is taken verbatim from this court’s nonpublished
opinion in defendant’s direct prior appeal, case No. E055003. (People v. Robinson (Nov.
26, 2013, E055003) [nonpub. opn.] (Robinson I).) After considering the People’s request
for judicial notice of the records from defendant’s direct appeal in case No. E055003 and
defendant’s opposition, we took judicial notice of the prior appeal in case No. E055003.

                                               2
intersecting with East Lincoln Loop Road. Evidence reflected the shooting occurred

because of rivalry between the HG and NAW gangs.

       A. Testimony of McGraw
                                                              4
       Joseph McGraw was visiting his sister, Sharon Martin. After midnight on July

31, 2008, McGraw and his sister’s husband, David Martin, were in the garage smoking

cigarettes. When Sharon saw a man with a gun, she called the police and the Martins and

McGraw moved out of the garage to the driveway. McGraw was shot as he was standing

by David and tried to take cover under a vehicle. McGraw could not identify the shooter.

       Dr. Paul Burton, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that McGraw sustained an

abdominal injury to the pancreas, a gunshot wound to the flank, and an open fracture to

the elbow. McGraw’s injuries required two surgeries and the insertion of permanent

plates in his elbow.

       B. Testimony of Sharon Martin

       Sharon testified that, in July 2008, she lived with her husband and children but her

18-year-old son, Tyson, had moved out in June after his high school graduation. When

she went to bed on July 30, McGraw was not inside the house. At 1:00 a.m. on July 31,

Sharon woke up because McGraw was loud and intoxicated. When she looked out the

window, she saw four men walking toward Liberty Loop Road, away from the

Remington Court cul-de-sac. Sharon told David that one of the men, codefendant

       4
         The Martins also use the surname Salter. Sharon had a 2007 perjury conviction
for using a false driver’s license.

                                             3
Gregory Atkins, was carrying a gun. She called the police because she thought it might

be related to a custody dispute involving David’s daughter. Sharon followed David

toward the cul-de-sac where he was talking to the men down the street. He yelled at them

to “get out of here.” Sharon was able to see codefendant Atkins.

      About 10 minutes passed. While waiting for the police, the Martins and McGraw

continued talking and smoking in the garage, before moving to the driveway. At that

point, the neighbor’s motion light activated. David pushed Sharon on the ground as

gunshots were fired. Sharon glimpsed a man wearing the same dark-colored shirt as

codefendant Atkins. She testified that Atkins was the shooter. McGraw yelled that he

had been shot and Sharon ran upstairs to check on her children.

      Afterwards, Sharon did not want to talk to the police because she was concerned

about the danger to her family. Although she did not tell the police about recognizing

codefendant Atkins, she did tell them she saw one suspect fleeing in a gray SUV. She

identified codefendant Atkins from a photographic lineup. She decided to cooperate with

the police after her husband planned to surrender to custody and she had been frightened

by a street encounter with codefendant Atkins.

      Sharon did not recall that Atkins had been friends with her son, Tyson. She

denied that Tyson was involved in gangs. Since the shooting incident, her family

experienced problems and had to relocate to a new home and schools. She acknowledged

that David Martin had been a Du-Roc Crips gang member.

                                            4
      C. Testimony of David Martin

      David Martin testified that, when Sharon told him she had seen some men, one of

whom was armed, he walked up the street to check it out. Sharon tried to stop him

because she preferred to call the police to handle it. David saw four men, wearing dark

colors and hoodies, walking toward the cul-de-sac. The men turned and faced him from a

distance of about five feet and he recognized them from previous contacts as defendant,

codefendant Atkins, Ranson Barrett Sparrow, and Jakeen Morgan. Defendant and Atkins

were in front and the other two were behind them.

      David said Tyson “socializes” with the NAW gang. Defendant, Atkins, and

Sparrow had been friends with Tyson in high school in 2007. David had seen defendant

at the Martin house and in the park playing basketball where David had smoked

marijuana with defendant. Morgan was also in school with Tyson. A couple of days

before this incident there had been a shooting nearby involving David’s daughter.

      David asked the four men what they were doing and defendant asked for Tyson.

David told him Tyson was not living there. When David said Sharon had called the

police and the men should leave, they started to walk away. Defendant raised his shirt

and displayed the butt of an automatic gun in his waistband.

      After following the men, David returned to his house where Sharon and McGraw,

who was drunk, were arguing in the driveway and waiting for the police. When the

neighbor’s motion detector lights activated, David saw the four men emerge from behind

another house. Defendant and Atkins began firing guns. David shoved Sharon down and

                                            5
squatted behind a vehicle. The gunshots hit their vehicles and the house. McGraw was

wounded. Defendants ran off and fled in an SUV.

       When David was first interviewed by the police, he did not cooperate because he
                                                                            5
was about to serve a one-year jail sentence for a 2008 robbery conviction and he thought

he would not be able to protect his family if he testified. He decided to testify after a

threatening encounter with Atkins and Sparrow. In August 2008, he identified defendant,

Atkins, Sparrow, and Morgan in photographic lineups. David testified that defendant and

Atkins had the guns and were the shooters.

       David admitted he was formerly a gang leader with the Du-Rock Crips gang with

a 25-year association. He had been involved in violence and a victim of three shootings.

He testified it was against the rules of the gang to cooperate with the police. Instead, the

gang would engage in retaliation. A person in custody was in danger if he was labeled a

snitch or a rat. In October 2008, the four men who had been involved in the shooting

threatened David while they were all incarcerated. They yelled at him and called him a

snitch. Atkins asserted he was from “Palmer Blocc” and “HG.” Defendant called David

an “OG,” meaning an older gangster. David was more concerned about his family’s

safety than his own. Other people had threatened him about testifying and his family had

to relocate.

       In cross-examination, David admitted having testified at the preliminary hearing

that he first heard about the men walking by from Sharon when he was upstairs playing a

       5
           David also admitted he had a 1997 felony conviction for burglary.

                                              6
game. He was not sure whether she said one of the men had a gun. There were

numerous inconsistencies between David’s testimony at trial, at the preliminary hearing,

and in various other statements he made to the police, particularly about who was armed

during the shooting.

         D. Other Prosecution Evidence

         The first officer on the scene, Casey Mutter, heard gunshots as he approached the

location and was flagged down by David Martin. McGraw was on the ground bleeding.

Martin said the assailants had run away in a northeastern direction between two houses.

Martin was upset and uncooperative. He said he could not identify the assailants because

he had dived for cover. Sharon Martin told Mutter she was inside the house when she

heard several gunshots and she saw four men run to a gray SUV and speed away. She

was not forthcoming about other details. Mutter did not observe an SUV leaving the

scene.

         Police Sergeant Thomas Yarrington also responded to the report involving four

Black males and a gun. As Yarrington approached Remington Court, he heard five

gunshots in rapid succession. In less than one minute, he drove to the scene where it was

chaotic with lots of yelling. McGraw was coherent but moaning. Both of the Martins

were argumentative and uncooperative, consistent with the behavior of other witnesses in

gang-related crimes. David said the shooters left in a silver or gray SUV. Sharon told

the police she had observed four or five Black males and one was carrying a gun so she

called 911. After she heard gunshots, they fled in a silver SUV or on foot.

                                              7
      On August 5, 2008, the Martins contacted a police detective, Cliff Ohler, to offer

more information. David Martin continued to be uncooperative but he identified the four

assailants as defendant, Atkins, Sparrow, and Morgan in photographic lineups. David did

not mention defendant, who used the gang moniker of “Punches,” having possession of a

gun. David was fearful of retaliation.

      On August 6, 2008, the detective learned defendant was staying with a gang

member, Jason Wooten, who was affiliated with “HG”—Hustler Gang or Heritage

Gang—and known as “Problem Child.” Police arrested defendant after chasing him

through a residential neighborhood and overcoming his resistance to being handcuffed.

      In a recorded police interview, defendant initially said he had heard about a

shooting but he denied being involved. He claimed he was at home on the night of the

shooting. Defendant knew Sparrow and Morgan but he denied having any gang

affiliations except with Pasadena Denver Lane Bloods. Defendant explained that “HG”

refers to “Harry Glenn,” a “dead homie.” Defendant had “Punches” tattooed on his

forearm. Later in the interview, defendant admitted being “HG” or “Hustler Gang.” He

said the shooting occurred because of retaliation and escalation among gang members.

The people present were “Smooth” (Marquis Walker), Problem Child (Jason Wooten),
                                                                            6
and Jakeen Morgan, but not Sparrow. Only one person, Smooth or “Keese” had a gun.

Defendant claimed the NAW gang shot first and Smooth shot back in response.

Defendant ducked when he heard the shooting and then began running.

      6
          Keese could not be identified until later.

                                              8
      While searching Atkins’s residence, police found a .45-caliber semiautomatic

handgun, a box of .25-caliber ammunition, and a sock containing 13 or 14 rounds of .38-

caliber ammunition. Atkins’s stepdad claimed the gun belonged to him. There was gang

graffiti, including the initials “HG” in one of the bedrooms, which was not occupied by

Atkins.

      E. Gang Testimony

      A gang expert, Kellen Guthrie, testified about gang culture and practice. He was

familiar with the HG gang, also known as Koehler Park Hustler. In July and October

2008, HG was an active gang with several members. HG is a rival gang with NAW. The

primary activities of HG were attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and

robbery. Atkins and defendant were active HG members.

      In May 2006, Craig Payne of HG was shot close to the Martin house by shooters

yelling NAW. Marquis Walker, also known as Keese, was an HG member. Wooten, or

Problem Child, was an HG member. Both Walker and Wooten had been victims of

shootings.

      In July 2008, HG was involved in a dispute over territory with NAW. The

shooting at the Martin residence was directed at their absent son, Tyson, and the NAW

gang. David Martin was a former Du-Roc gang member.

      On March 10, 2010, the San Bernardino County District Attorney charged

defendant and codefendant Gregory Atkins with three counts of attempted premeditated

and deliberate murder of McGraw and David and Sharon Martin (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664;

                                            9
counts 1-3) and dissuading a witness by force (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1); count 4). It was

further alleged that each offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang

(§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) It was also alleged in counts 1 through 3 that defendant and

Atkins personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), that they personally and

intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and that they personally and

intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).

       On March 12, 2010, a jury convicted defendant of one count of willful,

premediated and deliberate attempted murder of McGraw with a gang enhancement

(§§ 664/187, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and acquitted him of the remaining

counts. The jury did not find true the various firearm allegations. The court sentenced

defendant to a prison term of seven years to life plus 10 years for the gang enhancement.

       On November 26, 2013, this court affirmed the judgment. In doing so, we rejected

defendant’s arguments concerning the gang testimony, as well as instructional errors

relating to aiding and abetting and other forms of instructional error. (See Robinson I,

supra, E055003.)

       On November 17, 2021, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to

section 1172.6.

       After appointing counsel and receiving briefing from the parties, the trial court

held a hearing on May 13, 2022. The court summarily denied the petition, explaining as

follows: “As I indicated, the Court said at the last hearing that I was inclined to grant the

relief. However, I read Mr. Collins’s motion or opposition and he cited the case of

                                             10
People versus Coley, which is cited at 77 Cal.App 5th 539. And the Court is persuaded

that under the facts of the Robinson case and the jury instructions given by the Court at

that time, that Coley is squarely on point with the Court’s jury instructions. Meaning that

the Court neither gave the instructions pursuant to the felony murder rule nor any jury

instructions where the jury could infer the natural and probable consequence doctrine,

that it was only given the aiding and abetting jury instruction. [¶] Therefore, as a matter

of law, Mr. Robinson’s not entitled to the relief under Penal Code [s]ection 1170. 95

[now section 1172.6] with respect to a prima facie finding. The Court is going to deny

the petition at this time.” Defendant timely appealed.

                                            III.

                                      DISCUSSION

       Defendant contends the trial court erred in summarily denying his petition because

the available record of conviction suggested his allegations had potential merit, satisfying

the prima facie standard applicable under section 1172.6. The People respond that the

trial court correctly concluded defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law

because the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or

on any other theory of murder in which malice is imputed based solely on participation in

a crime.

       A. Legal Background

       Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1437 “‘to amend

the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to

                                             11
murder, 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.’” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10

Cal.5th 830, 846-847; see Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) The Legislature

accomplished this by amending sections 188 and 189.

       Section 188, which defines malice, now provides in part: “Except as stated in

subdivision (e) of [s]ection 189, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime

shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely

on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3); Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 2.)

       Section 189, subdivision (e), now limits the circumstances under which a person

may be convicted of felony murder: “A participant in the perpetration or attempted

perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) [defining first degree murder] in which a

death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: [¶] (1) The

person was the actual killer. [¶] (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the

intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or

assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. [¶] (3) The

person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless

indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of [s]ection 190.2.” (Stats.

2018, ch. 1015, § 3.)

       Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 expanded eligibility for relief to

include individuals convicted of attempted “murder under the natural and probable

                                              12
consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based

solely on that person’s participation in a crime.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a), as amended by

Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2; Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Sen. Bill No. 775 (2020-2021 Reg.

Sess.).) But it did not expand eligibility for relief pursuant to section 1172.6 to one who

directly aids and abets another who commits murder or attempted murder.

       Senate Bill No. 1437 also created a procedure for offenders previously convicted

of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to seek

retroactive relief if they could no longer be convicted of murder under the new law.

(§ 1172.6, subd. (a); People v. Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 843; People v. Lewis

(2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 (Lewis); People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708

(Strong).) “[T]he process begins with the filing of a petition containing a declaration that

all requirements for eligibility are met [citation], including that ‘[t]he petitioner could not

presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to . . . [s]ection

188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019’ . . . .” (Strong, supra, at p. 708.) “When the

trial court receives a petition containing the necessary declaration and other required

information, the court must evaluate the petition ‘to determine whether the petitioner has

made a prima facie case for relief.’ [Citations.] If the petition and record in the case

establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may

dismiss the petition.” (Ibid.)

       In Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, our Supreme Court explained the trial court’s role

in deciding a section 1172.6 petition: Petitioners who request counsel “are entitled to the

                                              13
appointment of counsel upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition . . . .” (Id. at
        7
p. 957.) “[O]nly after the appointment of counsel and the opportunity for briefing may

the superior court consider the record of conviction to determine whether ‘the petitioner

makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief.’” (Ibid., italics omitted;

see id. at p. 966 [“a complying petition is filed; the court appoints counsel, if requested;

the issue is briefed; and then the court makes [its] prima facie determination”].) The

court’s “prima facie inquiry . . . is limited. . . . ‘“[T]he court takes petitioner’s factual

allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner

would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved. If so, the court

must issue an order to show cause.”’ [Citation.] ‘[A] court should not reject the

petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an

evidentiary hearing.’” (Id. at p. 971.) Importantly, “[i]n reviewing any part of the record

of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a trial court should not engage in ‘factfinding

involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’” (Id. at p. 972.) The

court further concluded that a trial court’s failure to follow the procedures enacted in

section 1172.6 is analyzed for prejudice under the state law standard of People v. Watson

(1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. (Lewis, supra, at pp. 973-974.) Under this standard, we ask

whether it is reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable

outcome if counsel proper procedures had been followed. (Id. at p. 974.)

       7
         In Senate Bill No. 775, the Legislature amended the language of section 1172.6,
codifying Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, expanding the scope of the petitioning process
and clarifying some of the procedural requirements. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.)

                                               14
       If a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, “‘the court

shall issue an order to show cause.’” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708.) Once the

court determines that a defendant has made a prima facie showing, it “must [then] hold an

evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving, ‘beyond a

reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder’ under state

law as amended by Senate Bill [No.] 1437. [Citation.] ‘A finding that there is substantial

evidence to support a conviction for murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter is

insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is ineligible for

resentencing.’ [Citation.] ‘If the prosecution fails to sustain its burden of proof, the prior

conviction, and any allegations and enhancements attached to the conviction, shall be

vacated and the petitioner shall be resentenced on the remaining charges.’” (Strong,

supra, at p. 709; accord, Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 960.) “Senate Bill [No.] 1437

relief is unavailable if the defendant was either the actual killer, acted with the intent to

kill, or ‘was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless

indifference to human life . . . .’” (Strong, supra, at p. 710.)

       B. Standard of Review

       In this case, the trial court denied defendant’s petition at the prima facie stage

under section 1172.6, subdivision (c). A denial at this stage is appropriate only if the

record of conviction demonstrates that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of

law. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 960.) This is a purely legal conclusion, which we

review de novo. (See id. at p. 961.)

                                              15
       C. Analysis

       The trial court here properly relied on defendant’s record of conviction, including

the jury instructions, to discern defendant’s ineligibility as a matter of law at the prima

facie stage. As our Supreme Court has stated, “the parties can, and should, use the record

of conviction to aid the trial court in reliably assessing whether a petitioner has made a

prima facie case for relief under [section 1172.6,] subdivision (c),” but cannot “engage in

‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’” (Lewis,

supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 972.) The trial court here did not weigh evidence or exercise any

discretion. Rather, the court explained the jury instructions given at defendant’s trial.

Discerning what instructions were given is not weighing evidence. (See, e.g., People v.

Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 546-547 (Coley) [analyzing jury instructions to

determine prima facie eligibility]; People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 894-895

[same].)

       Here, defendant’s record of conviction shows that he was either the actual killer or

directly aided and abetted in the attempted murder and that he acted with the specific

intent to kill. The jury instructions given at defendant’s trial did not allow defendant to

be convicted based upon imputed malice but a showing of actual malice as the actual

killer or as an aider or abettor. At trial, the jury was instructed on premeditated attempted

murder pursuant to CALCRIM Nos. 600 and 601. CALCRIM No. 600 instructed the

jury that an attempted murder conviction required that the “‘defendant intended to kill

that person.’” The jury convicted defendant of willful, deliberate and premeditated

                                              16
murder which stated in relevant part, “‘The defendants acted willfully if they intended to

kill when they acted.’” The instruction further instructed, “‘The attempted murder was

done willfully and with deliberation and premeditation if either of the defendants or both

of them acted with that state of mind.’”

       The court also instructed the jury pursuant to CALCRIM No. 400 on general

aiding and abetting principles as follows: “‘A person may be guilty of a crime in two

ways. One, he or she may have directly committed the crime. I will call that person the

perpetrator. Two, he or she may have aided and abetted a perpetrator who directly

committed the crime. A person is equally guilty of the crime whether he or she

committed it personally or aided and abetted the perpetrator who committed it.’” The

jury was also instructed on CALCRIM No. 401, the direct aiding and abetting instruction,

which provided in pertinent part: “‘To prove that a defendant is guilty of a crime based

on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that: [¶] 1. The perpetrator

committed the crime; [¶] 2. The defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit

the crime; [¶] 3. Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended

to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime; [¶] And [¶] 4. The defendant’s

words or conduct did, in fact, aid and abet the perpetrator’s commission of the crime. [¶]

Someone aids and abets a crime if he knows of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and he

specifically intends to and does, in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate

the perpetrator’s commission of that crime.”

                                              17
       While the amendment to section 188 effectively eliminated use of the natural and

probable consequences doctrine to support a murder or attempted murder conviction, the

change did not “alter the law regarding the criminal liability of direct aiders and abettors

of murder because such persons necessarily ‘know and share the murderous intent of the

actual perpetrator.’” (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118; see People v. Chiu

(2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 167 [a direct aider and abettor “acts with the mens rea required for

first degree murder”].) Hence, a direct aider and abettor can be convicted of murder

notwithstanding the amendments to sections 188 and 189, which changed nothing with

regard to direct aider and abettor liability. Defendant was required to make a prima facie

showing that he was not convicted as a perpetrator or direct aider and abettor, and thereby

“‘“falls within the provisions of” the statute.’” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 961;

§ 1172.6, subds. (a)(3) & (c).) He failed to do so.

       The jury was not instructed with CALCRIM Nos. 402 or 403 on the natural and

probable consequences doctrine. In addition, the jury was not instructed on felony

murder, or any other theory of liability that would have permitted the jury to impute

malice to defendant. Rather, the instructions were limited to direct aiding and abetting,

express and implied malice, and premeditation and deliberation. And during closing

argument, the prosecutor argued that defendant either committed attempted murder as

either a direct perpetrator or a direct aider and abettor. Although the jury was unable to

reach a true finding as to the willful, deliberate and premeditated allegation as to

defendant’s codefendant, the jury did return a true finding defendant committed the

                                             18
attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation. Thus, contrary to defendant’s

argument, here the jury certainly found defendant acted with the necessary mental state.

       Coley, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th 539 is instructive. The defendant in Coley was

convicted of second degree murder and attempted murder and appealed the denial of his

petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. (Coley, supra, at pp. 541-542.) The trial

court concluded that the record of conviction showed the jury had found express malice,

i.e., a specific intent to unlawfully kill, when it convicted the defendant of attempted

murder, and therefore denied the petition. (Id. at p. 545.) The Court of Appeal affirmed,

concluding that the defendant’s conviction for attempted murder “demonstrates that he

was convicted of second degree murder with express rather than implied malice.” (Id. at

p. 547.) The court explained that the defendant was “convicted of murder based on his

aiding and abetting of the same shooting that gave rise to the attempted murder

conviction” and that “[t]he jury was instructed by CALCRIM No. 600 that attempted

murder requires a determination that ‘the defendants intended to kill that person.’”

(Ibid.) “[B]y finding [the defendant] guilty of attempted murder, the jury necessarily

found he had personally harbored intent to kill or express malice when he aided and

abetted the second degree murder.” (Ibid.)

       Defendant contends the trial court’s reliance on Coley was misplaced because the

jury in Coley, unlike the jury here, found true that the defendant was a principal who

personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death.

We disagree. As in Coley, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th 539, defendant’s conviction for

                                             19
premeditated attempted murder demonstrates that defendant acted with express rather

than implied malice.

       According to the plain language of section 1172.6, a person convicted of

attempted murder is eligible for relief only if that conviction was based on the natural and

probable consequences doctrine. (Coley, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 548 [“Section

[1172.6] applies by its terms only to attempted murders based on the natural and probable

consequences doctrine”].) Where, as in this case, the instructions did not permit the jury

to convict defendant of “attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences

doctrine” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)), defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a

matter of law. (Coley, supra, at p. 548 [defendant convicted of attempted murder not

entitled to § 1172.6 relief because the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable

consequences doctrine]; see also People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 599 [“if the

jury did not receive an instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the

jury could not have convicted the defendant on that basis, and the petition should be

summarily denied”].)

       Defendant’s reliance on People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972 (Langi)—

which he cites to contend the jury could have convicted him of attempted murder as an

aider and abettor without finding he personally acted with malice—is misplaced. In

Langi, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder as an aider and abettor

based on his participation in a fistfight among several people, in which the victim was

                                             20
punched in the face, fell, and hit the back of his head on the sidewalk or curb, resulting in

the victim’s death. (Id. at pp. 975, 976-977.)

       On appeal from the summary denial of the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition, the

Court of Appeal concluded that the instruction on aiding and abetting (CALJIC No. 3.01)

creates an ambiguity in the context of second degree implied malice murder, which may

allow the jury to “find the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting second degree murder

without finding that he personally acted with malice.” (Langi, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at

p. 982.) The court explained, “The aiding-and-abetting instruction stated that a person

aids and abets a crime if he or she acts ‘with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the

perpetrator, and . . . with the intent or purpose of committing or encouraging or

facilitating the commission of the crime.’ (CALJIC No. 3.01, italics added.)

However, . . . the second degree murder instruction specified that the direct perpetrator of

that crime need not act with the unlawful intent of causing death. . . . If the perpetrator

need not have had ‘murderous intent,’ certainly the aider and abettor need not have had

such an intent. Although the definition of second degree murder in CALJIC No. 8.31

states that the perpetrator must have acted with conscious disregard for human life, the

definition of an aider and abettor in CALJIC No. 3.01 does not include the same

requirement.” (Langi, supra, at pp. 982-983.) In this situation, the ambiguity in the

instructions allows an aider and abettor to be found guilty simply for intending to aid the

perpetrator’s act, without personally and consciously disregarding the danger to human

life. (Id. at p. 983.)

                                             21
        Langi is inapposite because defendant was not convicted of second degree or

implied malice murder, but rather, premeditated attempted murder. In contrast to second

degree implied malice murder, the perpetrator of an attempted murder must have the

specific intent to unlawfully kill another human being. (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1

Cal.5th 838, 890 [“‘Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the

commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing’”].)

Because, as set forth above, an aider and abettor to attempted murder shares the

perpetrator’s intent to kill, the possibility of imputing malice to an aider and abettor

identified in Langi is not present where the defendant is convicted of attempted murder as

an aider and abettor. (See Coley, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 547-548 [Langi

inapplicable where attempted murder conviction based on jury instructions requiring

intent to kill].)

        Defendant further argues he set forth a prima facie case because the court

instructed the jury on aiding and abetting with the former version of CALCRIM No. 400,

which used the now invalidated “equally guilty” language that has since been found to

potentially mislead a jury into equating an aider and abettor’s mental state with that of the

perpetrator’s without making an independent factual finding regarding the aider and

abettor’s intent to kill.

        The “equally guilty” language in CALCRIM No. 400 did not allow the jury to find

defendant guilty of attempted murder without considering defendant’s own mental state.

(See People v. Johnson (2016) 62 Cal.4th 600, 638-641.) In Johnson, our Supreme Court

                                              22
rejected the argument that CALCRIM former No. 400’s “equally guilty” language allows

a jury to convict an aider and abettor of first degree murder based on the perpetrator’s

culpability without considering the aider and abettor’s own mental state. (Id. at pp. 638,

641.) The court held that where the jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 401 setting

forth the requirements for establishing aider and abettor liability, “there was no

reasonable likelihood the jurors would have understood the ‘equally guilty’ language in

CALCRIM former No. 400 to allow them to base defendant’s liability for first degree

murder on the mental state of the actual shooter, rather than on defendant’s own mental

state in aiding and abetting the killing.” (Id. at p. 641; People v. Estrada (2022) 77

Cal.App.5th 941, 947.) In this case, the jury was instructed with both CALCRIM Nos.

400 and 401.

       Defendant further argues that CALCRIM No. 401 did not negate the danger of

imputed malice in this case because “the jury was demonstrably confused about whether

it had to find all the required elements of aiding and abetting to find a defendant guilty”

as based on their questions during deliberations. The jury here asked the following three

questions: “Can you please help clarify all the components of aiding and abetting,” “Do

the defendants need to meet all 4 criteria of aiding and abetting to be considered guilty,”

and “Does either of the defendants presented in this trial have to be the perpetrator.” To

each question, the court instructed the jury to refer to CALCRIM Nos. 400 and 401. It is

presumed that the jury followed the trial court’s instructions unless the record

affirmatively indicates otherwise. (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1,

                                             23
83.) Here, there was no evidence that the jury did not understand the court’s response or

did not follow the court’s instructions. We further reject defendant’s speculative claims

that the gang enhancement allegation instructions might have caused the jury to reach a

compromise verdict on what was otherwise a fairly weak case.

       In sum, the jury’s verdict and the jury instructions show as a matter of law that

defendant was convicted as a perpetrator or a direct aider and abettor, and therefore was

convicted under a theory of murder that still remains valid after Senate Bill No. 1437.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s petition for resentencing.

                                            IV.

                                      DISPOSITION

       The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                CODRINGTON
                                                                                             J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                        P. J.

RAPHAEL
                           J.

                                             24