Court Opinion

ID: 9942302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 20:04:28.585299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:55.725740
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/20/24 P. v. Payne CA6
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         H050013
                                                                    (Santa Clara County
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                               Super. Ct. No. 87249)

             v.

 ORRIN WILLIAM PAYNE,

             Defendant and Appellant.

         Orrin William Payne committed a burglary and other crimes with Henry Lee
Williams at the home of Kathy and Michael Hynan.1 Payne verbally threatened to kill
Michael and physically restrained him while Williams shot and killed Kathy in an
adjacent room. Following a bench trial conducted in 1983, a court convicted Payne of
first-degree felony murder (Pen. Code, § 1872) and found true a burglary-murder special
circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(vii)) and a related aider-and-
abettor allegation (§ 190.2, former subd. (b)). The court sentenced Payne to life in prison
without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

         1
         For clarity, we refer to the Hynans (a married couple) by their first names. The
appellate record includes two spellings for Kathy’s full first name: “Kathline” and
“Kathleen.” Given this discrepancy and because, at Payne’s sentencing hearing, Michael
referred to his wife as “Kathy,” we use that first name.
       2
         Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
       In 2022, Payne brought a petition under former section 1170.95 (now section
1172.6), asserting he cannot be convicted of murder under current law. The resentencing
court denied Payne’s petition at the prima facie stage. Whether that denial was error
turns on whether the original court that conducted the bench trial (hereafter, court of
conviction) found beyond a reasonable doubt that Payne had the intent to kill.
       The timing of Payne’s trial is significant. In 1983, a defendant could be convicted
under California law of felony murder without any showing of an intent to kill, and the
law was unsettled on whether an aider and abettor like Payne must have intended to kill
or aid in the killing to be found liable for a felony-murder special circumstance.
       In explaining its findings and in deciding posttrial motions, the court of conviction
made statements suggesting that it had found that Payne intended to aid Williams in
killing Kathy. Several reviewing courts have subsequently decided that the trial evidence
and record support this conclusion. However, Payne’s trial counsel repeatedly raised to
the court of conviction the question of Payne’s intent, and the court never definitively
stated that it found that Payne intended to kill or aid in the killing.
       We have carefully reviewed the record, California homicide law at the time of
Payne’s trial, and our Supreme Court’s interpretation of section 1172.6. We decide that
the record does not establish conclusively that the court of conviction found beyond a
reasonable doubt that Payne intended to kill, and no subsequent appellate decisions
establish this finding as a matter of law. Therefore, Payne may not be denied section
1172.6 relief at the prima facie stage (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 463
(Curiel)). We reverse the resentencing court’s order and remand with directions to issue
an order to show cause and conduct further proceedings.
                    I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On December 7, 1982, Payne and Williams entered the Hynans’ home and shot
and killed Kathy.

                                                   2
       A. Pretrial Proceedings
       Following a preliminary hearing and the filing of an information against Payne
and his codefendant Williams (in March 1983), each filed a demurrer. Payne asserted,
inter alia, that the alleged special circumstances (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(5), former subds.
(a)(17)(i), (a)(17)(vii), (b)) were unconstitutional on their face because they failed to
plead that he “ ‘killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill’ the victim.” Payne noted that
“[i]n recent months the California Supreme Court ha[d] granted a hearing in every case
where a special circumstance found true as to a non-triggerman was sustained on appeal.”
       In May 1983, by an amended information (information), the district attorney
charged Payne and Williams. The jointly charged offenses relating to the crime against
the Hynans comprised the murder of Kathy (§ 187; count 1), burglary (§ 459; count 2),
and robbery (§ 211; count 3).
       As to the murder count, the information alleged three special circumstances—
murder to avoid arrest (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(5)), robbery murder (§ 190.2, former subd.
(a)(17)(i)), and burglary murder (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(vii))—and further alleged
that Payne and Williams intentionally aided and abetted another in the commission of
first degree murder (hereafter, aider-and-abettor allegation) (§ 190.2, former subd. (b)3).
       For counts 1 through 3, the information alleged that Payne and Williams each
personally used a firearm (hereafter, firearm-use allegation) (§ 12022.5). The
information also charged Payne alone with seven other offenses (counts 4, 6–11) and

       3
         Section 190.2, former subdivision (b) provided: “Every person whether or not
the actual killer found guilty of intentionally aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding,
inducing, soliciting, requesting, or assisting any actor in the commission of murder in the
first degree shall suffer death or confinement in state prison for a term of life without the
possibility of parole, in any case in which one or more of the special circumstances
enumerated in paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14),
(15), (16), (17), (18), or (19) of subdivision (a) of this section has been charged and
specially found under [s]ection 190.4 to be true.” (Added by Prop. 7, § 6, as approved by
voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978) (hereafter, Proposition 7); see § 190.2, subd. (c)
[analogous, current provision].)
                                                  3
alleged that he had previously been convicted of felony grand theft (hereafter, prior-
conviction allegation).4
       The trial court severed the cases against Payne and Williams and ordered each
defendant tried separately.
       B. Bench Trial
       In June 1983, Payne and the district attorney stipulated to a bench trial based
primarily on the transcript of the preliminary examination. (See Bunnell v. Superior
Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 602 (Bunnell).) Additionally, the district attorney agreed to
forego seeking the death penalty against Payne, permit concurrent sentences if Payne
were convicted on certain counts, and strike the prior-conviction allegation. For counts 1
through 3 and their attached allegations, the parties submitted the matter for decision by
the court based on victim Michael’s preliminary hearing testimony and related exhibits.5
              1. Evidence Presented at Bench Trial6
       On December 7, 1982, Michael and his pregnant wife Kathy shared a home in San
Jose with their two young daughters. When Michael returned home from work about
7:45 p.m., he saw two unfamiliar bicycles parked behind some bushes on the property.

       4
          The information similarly charged Williams with six other offenses and alleged a
prior robbery conviction.
        5
          The transcript of Michael’s preliminary hearing testimony and the related
exhibits are not in the record on appeal and were not before the resentencing court when
it decided Payne’s section 1172.6 petition. Nevertheless, a few documents from the
original prosecution of Payne were before the resentencing court and appear in our
appellate record.
        Further, this court granted Payne’s unopposed motion to augment the record with
certain pleadings and a court order filed during the original prosecution of Payne, as well
as reporter’s transcripts for certain court proceedings from the original prosecution.
Although the material that has been added to our appellate record through augmentation
was not before the resentencing court, we rely on that material (the inclusion of which the
Attorney General did not oppose) in deciding this appeal.
        6
          We summarize the evidence presented at Payne’s bench trial based on the facts
stated by the Court of Appeal in People v. Payne (Feb. 9, 1989, A024288) [nonpub. opn.]

                                                 4
        Michael approached a sliding glass door that led from a screened patio into the
home’s family room. The door was locked. He noticed his three-and-a-half-year-old
daughter watching television in the family room and his wife talking on the telephone in
the kitchen. The family room and kitchen were separated by a divider about four and
one-half to five feet high. Michael beckoned to his daughter, but she was unable to
unlock the sliding glass door. To get Kathy’s attention, Michael pounded very loudly on
the glass door nine or ten times. He entered the house and told Kathy, “Get off the phone
and call the police. Somebody’s in the backyard.”
        Michael went to the master bedroom to get his .22 pellet pistol from the closet. As
he turned around with the pistol in his right hand, Payne came out of the darkness and,
with his left hand, grabbed Michael’s right hand. Michael called for “help” in a loud
voice, and Payne placed his right forearm against Michael’s throat. Payne had nothing in
his hands. In a very low tone of voice Payne told Michael, “Shut up or I’ll blow your
fucking head off.” Michael let his pistol drop to the floor, and Payne spun Michael
around and pushed him into the living room.
        Payne said, “On the floor facedown” and pushed Michael down hard to the floor,
where he assumed a spread eagle position. Michael “sensed” that Payne remained behind
him, out of his view. He heard no sounds indicating that Payne had left the immediate
area.
        As Michael was going down to the floor, he saw a second man (codefendant
Williams) enter the living room through the sliding glass door from the patio. Both
Payne and Williams were wearing hooded sweatshirts with the hood tied securely around
the head. Upon entering the house, Williams turned and stepped from the living room

at pages 2–5 (Payne I). A copy of the opinion in Payne I is included in the record of this
appeal. We do not use quotation marks in part I.A.1. to indicate material that is copied
directly from the Payne I opinion. Language that appears in quotation marks in part
I.A.1. appeared as such in that opinion.
                                                 5
into the family room. Michael heard Williams yell, “Put the fucking phone down.”
Kathy said, “Please don’t shoot me.” Michael then heard two shots, each followed by a
“yelp” from Kathy.
       Almost immediately after the shooting Williams came around the corner from the
family room and into the living room. Michael could see that Williams was holding a
revolver. Williams put his foot on Michael’s head and said, “Where is the money, all of
it?” Michael could not see Payne at this point, but he was still nearby. Michael reached
into his pocket, pulled out $17, and threw it on the floor. He saw a hand pick up the
money. One of the men (Michael was not sure who) removed Michael’s checkbook and
wallet from his rear pants pocket.
       After Williams took his foot off Michael’s head, Michael saw one of the men
heading toward the sliding glass door in the back of the house. The other reached down,
took off Michael’s glasses, and threw them against the wall. Payne and Williams ran side
by side out the sliding glass door onto the patio. Michael went to Kathy and found that
she was dead.
       Michael testified that he felt there was “no reason to doubt” Payne’s statement
during the crime that he was armed, even though Michael did not see a gun in Payne’s
possession and did not see or feel anything metallic or any bulges like weapons.
       Michael estimated that about three to four minutes passed from the time he entered
the house to the time the assailants fled. He also estimated that Williams was out of his
sight for about five to seven seconds from the time Williams entered the family room
until he returned to the living room. The first shot was fired less than a second after
Kathy spoke. The second shot came about a second later. Michael did not believe that
Payne could have been the person who shot Kathy.
       Later that evening Michael noticed that the bicycles he had seen were gone and
that his pellet gun, which he had dropped in the master bedroom, was missing.

                                                 6
              2. Argument on the Evidence
       Before making its decision on the charges and allegations, the court of conviction
heard arguments from counsel about the evidence.
       The prosecutor conceded that “the transcript and the evidence submitted to [the]
court does not indicate that Mr. Payne personally killed [Kathy]” and there was no
support for the firearm-use allegation. Nevertheless, the prosecutor contended that Payne
could be found guilty of first degree murder based on either the felony-murder rule or as
“a principal in this case under the aiding and abetting theory.” As to the latter theory of
first degree murder liability, the prosecutor said, “Payne and his course of conduct while
inside the house and with respect to [Michael] Hynan directly contributed, promoted and
assisted in the murder of [Kathy] Hynan.”
       Regarding the special circumstances, the prosecutor asserted that the murder-to-
avoid-arrest special circumstance allegation and the burglary-murder special
circumstances allegation were true but conceded that the robbery-murder special
circumstance was not true. The prosecutor further asserted that the special circumstances
applied in this case under section 190.2, subdivision (a), because “Payne is guilty of
murder in the first degree by virtue of the aiding and abetting principle or the felony
murder rule.” The prosecutor made no specific argument regarding the aider-and-abettor
allegation under section 190.2, former subdivision (b) but did note that the prosecution
was not seeking the death penalty against Payne.
       Payne’s trial counsel challenged section 190.2 as “an unconstitutional scheme as
to a non-killer” and asserted that to make the scheme arguably constitutional, “[t]he court
must find the intent to kill.” Counsel further asserted that the evidence did not prove
Payne harbored an intent to kill and, in the absence of an intent to kill, the burglary-
murder special circumstance should be found untrue.
       Regarding the aider-and-abettor allegation, trial counsel stated, “I really can’t
advise the court whether or not it’s absolutely constitutionally required and statutorily
                                                  7
required that” the holding of Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 (Enmund) be
applied to section 190.2, former subdivision (b).7 Counsel continued, “or whether
[section] 190.2[, former subdivision] (b) supplants the [burglary-murder] special
circumstance in this case or is supplemental to or whether or not it’s able to stand as a
special circumstance on its own four legs independent of [the burglary-murder special
circumstance].”
       Counsel noted that there was a dearth of published case law addressing “the
liability of a non-killer” under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17) and former subdivision
(b), because the California Supreme Court had “vacated or depublished” several appellate
decisions on the subject.8

       7
          In Enmund, the United States Supreme Court reversed a death judgment
“[b]ecause the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty . . . in the absence of
proof that [the defendant] killed or attempted to kill, and regardless of whether [the
defendant] intended or contemplated that life would be taken.” (Enmund, supra, 458
U.S. at p. 801.)
        8
          In this appeal, Payne has requested judicial notice of five depublished California
Court of Appeal opinions (decided between April 13, 1981, and October 25, 1982) that
“reached differing conclusions on whether the 1978 death penalty initiative permitted
imposition of a sentence of death or [LWOP] on an individual who neither killed nor
intended to kill.” The California Supreme Court granted review of those opinions prior
to its December 1983 decision in Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131
(Carlos), overruled by People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1147 (Anderson).
        In Carlos, our Supreme Court noted that a “number of appeals pending before [it]
present the question whether intent to kill is required for felony murder special
circumstances” as to aiders and abettors or actual killers. (Carlos, supra, 35 Cal.3d at
p. 136, fn. 4.) The court decided to “construe the word ‘intentionally’ in subdivision (b)
of section 190.2 to apply to all defendants—actual killers and accomplices alike—and to
require an intent to kill before a defendant is subject to a special circumstance finding
under paragraph 17 of that section.” (Id. at pp. 153–154.)
        In this appeal, the Attorney General did not oppose Payne’s request for judicial
notice. Under these circumstances, we grant Payne’s request as to the following
depublished opinions: People v. Kelly (Apr. 13, 1981, Crim. No. 35988) [previously
published at 117 Cal.App.3d 944]; People v. Marshall (July 16, 1981, Crim. No. 11801)
[previously published at 121 Cal.App.3d 627]; People v. Pendleton (Aug. 16, 1982,
Crim. No. 39472) [previously published at 135 Cal.App.3d 41]; People v. Perez (Aug.

                                                 8
              3. Court of Conviction’s Findings on the Evidence9
       On June 30, 1983, the court of conviction found Payne guilty of first degree
murder (count 1), “expressly rel[ying] upon the felony murder rule.” (See Payne I,
supra, A024288, at pp. 5, 10.) The court found not true the firearm-use allegation
attached to that count. (Id. at p. 5.)
       Regarding the special circumstances, the court found true the burglary-murder
special circumstance allegation. It stated, “As to the third special circumstance alleged
by the People, the court makes its finding that said special circumstance is true.”10 It
found not true the murder-to-avoid-arrest and robbery-murder special circumstances
allegations. (Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 5.)
       Regarding the aider-and-abettor allegation attached to the first degree murder
charge, the court stated verbally it “finds that the defendant intentionally aided and
abetted in the commission of murder in the first degree in that he intentionally and

26, 1982, Crim. No. 38480) [previously published at 135 Cal.App.3d 406]; People v.
Smith (Oct. 25, 1982, Crim. No. 13183 [previously published at 136 Cal.App.3d 961]);
and People v. Sims (Oct. 25, 1982, Crim. No. 40314) [previously published at 136
Cal.App.3d 942]. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (d)(1), 459; People ex rel.
Gallegos v. Pacific Lumber Co. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 950, 955, fn. 2.) Although we
judicially notice these depublished opinions because they are relevant to the legal
landscape before Carlos was decided, we do not rely on them as precedent. (See Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115; see also People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 549
(Garcia) [describing Carlos as “address[ing] a question of first impression”].)
        9
          At the conclusion of a bench trial, the judge announces his or her “findings upon
the issues of fact, which shall be in substantially the form prescribed for the general
verdict of a jury and shall be entered upon the minutes.” (§ 1167; see also § 689; People
v. Seneca Ins. Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 954, 958.)
        10
           In an apparent misstatement of the court’s finding on the burglary-murder
special circumstance, the clerk’s minutes of the proceeding reported that finding to
include language not stated verbally by the court; namely, “The court finds that the third
alleged special circumstance is true in that the defendant restrained Michael Hynan.”
(Capitalization omitted & italics added.) The language about Payne’s restraint of
Michael appears in the court’s verbal explanation of its findings on the aider-and-abettor
allegation.
                                                   9
illegally restrained Michael Hynan by force and fear as Henry Lee Williams
accomplished the first degree murder.”11 (See Payne I, supra, A024288, at pp. 5, 7.)
       The court also found Payne guilty of first degree burglary (count 2) and robbery
(count 3) and found not true the firearm-use allegations attached to counts 2 and 3.
Finally, the court found Payne guilty of three other offenses (counts 4, 6 & 9) and not
guilty of four offenses (counts 7, 8, 10 & 11).
                4. Motions and Sentencing
       Payne filed a “[m]otion to [m]odify [the] [v]erdict” based on insufficient evidence
(hereafter, motion to modify) (§ 1181) and, alternatively, moved the court of conviction
to strike the special circumstance in the interest of justice (§ 1385).
       In August 1983, the court of conviction held a hearing on Payne’s motions and
sentencing.
       Trial counsel asserted that “the evidence is not sufficient to support the finding of
truth of the [burglary-murder] special circumstance to the extent the court found under
[section] 190.2[, former subdivision] (b) that [Payne] intentionally aided and abetted in
the killing in the first degree of [Kathy].”
       Trial counsel described the court’s finding on the aider-and-abettor allegation as
follows: “The court made the express finding that Mr. Payne intentionally aided and
abetted Mr. Williams not just in the burglary but in the commission of murder of [Kathy]
and he did that by restraining, by force or fear, [Michael] in the living room area while
Mr. Williams killed [Kathy] in the kitchen.” Counsel asserted that there was insufficient
evidence to show that Payne “remained in the living room restraining [Michael] by force
or fear. And even if he did remain in the living room and restrained him by force and
fear, the evidence is insufficient to show that he intentionally aided and abetted Mr.
Williams, sharing the purpose that Mr. Williams had, which was to kill [Kathy].”

       11
            The clerk’s minutes do not mention this finding by the court.
                                                  10
Counsel added, “intentionality . . . means that you share the purpose of the perpetrator,
you intend to bring about the result that he wants done. That evidence is not in this case.”
       The court of conviction denied Payne’s motion to modify stating: “To be quite
frank with you, the issue is a complex one in my mind. I am sure the issue will be one
which will have a long legal history and in my view, the issue as to what is required for
the special circumstance finding perhaps will be resolved by courts of much higher
posture than this one. For whatever it’s worth, in my view, I have reviewed the evidence
in my own mind again and I believe the evidence is sufficient for the finding.” In
addition, the court denied Payne’s motion to strike the special circumstance in the interest
of justice.
       The court of conviction sentenced Payne to LWOP on count 1, stayed the
punishment on count 2 (burglary) and count 3 (robbery) (§ 654), and imposed a total,
concurrent determinate term of four years and four months for counts 4, 6, and 9. (See
Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 1.)
       C. Direct Appeal
       On appeal from his judgment of conviction, Payne “initially contended that (1) the
special circumstance finding was not supported by the evidence and was erroneous as a
matter of law; (2) the finding that [he] was an aider and abettor in the crime of murder
was contrary to law; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that [he]
was guilty of robbery.” (Payne I, supra, A024288, at pp. 1–2.)
       In February 1986, a divided panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
(People v. Payne (Feb. 27, 1986, A024288), review granted June 24, 1986, Crim. No.
25532 [previously published at 195 Cal.App.3d 1495].) In June 1986, our Supreme
Court granted review. (Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 1.)
       In July 1988, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to the Court of
Appeal for reconsideration in light of People v. Odle (1988) 45 Cal.3d 386, 410–415
(Odle) [overruled on another ground in People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 256
                                                11
(Prieto)], Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1138–1148, and People v. Warren (1988) 45
Cal.3d 471, 486–488 (Warren).12 (Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 1.)
         In supplemental briefing filed after the Supreme Court’s transfer, Payne “stressed
his claim that the [] court [of conviction] failed to make the requisite findings that [he]
had a specific intent to kill and that he had the requisite mental state for an aider and
abettor, citing People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547.”13 (Payne I, supra, A024288, at
p. 2.)
         In Payne I, a divided panel of the Court of Appeal rejected Payne’s claims of error
and affirmed the judgment. (Payne I, supra, A024288, at pp. 2, 11.)
         The majority in Payne I explained: “Our review of the record convinces us that
the [] court [of conviction] made the requisite finding of intent to kill or to aid in killing.”
(Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 7.) The majority quoted the court of conviction’s finding

         12
            In Odle, our Supreme Court rejected a claim that the trial court erred by
omitting instructions on the elements of a special circumstance, concluding that the
failure to instruct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 18. (Odle, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 414–415.)
        In Anderson, our high court overruled Carlos and held that “intent to kill is not an
element of the felony-murder special circumstance; but when the defendant is an aider
and abetter rather than the actual killer, intent must be proved.” (Anderson, supra, 43
Cal.3d at p. 1147; see also id. at p. 1145 [section 190.2, former subdivision (b) “declares
that the felony-murder aider and abetter is eligible for the death penalty if intent to kill is
proved”; “the aider and abetter must intentionally aid in a killing”].)
        In Warren, our Supreme Court rejected a claim that the trial court had failed to
properly instruct on intent to kill for the felony-murder and multiple-murder special
circumstances. The Supreme Court concluded that a reasonable juror would have
understood the following instruction as requiring a determination that the defendant acted
with intent to kill: “ ‘[T]he defendant was . . . a person who intentionally aided, abetted,
counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested or assisted the actual killer in the
commission of murder in the first degree.’ ” (Warren, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 487.)
        13
           In Beeman, our Supreme Court “conclude[d] that the weight of authority and
sound law require proof that an aider and abettor act with knowledge of the criminal
purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of
encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.” (People v. Beeman, supra, 35
Cal.3d at p. 560 (Beeman).)
                                                  12
on the aider-and-abettor allegation and held that that finding “was the unambiguous
equivalent of a finding that [Payne] intended to aid in the killing, as required by Carlos,
and also by the subsequent decision in People v. Beeman, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pages 554–
561, defining the elements of aiding and abetting. In other words, the court [of
conviction] found not only that [Payne] intentionally aided in the burglary, but also that
when he restrained [Michael], he did so with the intent of aiding Williams in the killing
of the victim.” (Payne I, supra, A024288, at pp. 7–8, underscoring omitted & italics
added.)
         The Payne I majority explained that its “conclusion about the court’s meaning”
was supported by the court of conviction’s implicit rejection of trial counsel’s statement
(made during counsel’s argument on the motion to modify) that “ ‘the evidence is
insufficient to show that [Payne] intentionally aided and abetted Mr. Williams, sharing
the purpose that Mr. Williams had, which was to kill [Kathy].” (Payne I, supra,
A024288, at p. 8, underscoring omitted.) In ruling on the motion to modify, the court of
conviction said, “I have reviewed the evidence in my own mind again and I believe the
evidence is sufficient for the finding.” (Ibid., underscoring omitted.)
         Additionally, the Payne I majority concluded that the court of conviction’s
“finding was supported by ample evidence in the form of [Payne]’s statements, actions,
and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” (Payne I, supra, A024288, at
p. 9.)
         The Payne I majority further made its “own independent finding that [Payne]
intended to kill or to aid in the killing.” (Payne I, supra, A024288, at pp. 9–10.) The
court explained, “Because the question of the truth of a special circumstance allegation is

                                                 13
one affecting the determination not of guilt or innocence, but of the appropriate penalty,
this court is a proper tribunal to resolve it.”14 (Id. at p. 10.)
       The dissent in Payne I disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the court of
conviction’s stated finding on the aider-and-abettor allegation determined that Payne
“acted with intent to aid Williams in killing [Kathy].” (Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 3
(dis. opn. of White, P. J.).) The dissenting justice explained: “The first degree murder of
which the [] court [of conviction] was speaking was felony murder and [Payne] could
have intentionally aided in the underlying felony by his restraining of Michael Hynan
even if this restraint could also possibly be said to have aided Henry Williams in his
killing of [Kathy] Hynan, but this does not mean the court found that [Payne] intended
that his restraint of [Michael] Hynan aid in the killing of [Kathy] Hynan. I am therefore
of the opinion that the [] court’s finding did not amount to the finding required by Carlos
and Anderson that [Payne] intended to kill or aid in a killing.” (Ibid., underscoring
omitted & italics added.)
       The dissenting justice concluded: “In light of the fact that the court [of
conviction] was aware of this legal issue but still failed to make a clear finding that

       14
          For this proposition, the Payne I majority cited Cabana v. Bullock (1986) 474
U.S. 376, 385–386 and Odle, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pages 410–415. Subsequent precedent,
however, abrogates Odle’s holding (which was grounded on Cabana v. Bullock). In
Prieto, our Supreme Court explained the abrogation: “In Odle, we held that ‘there is no
right under the Sixth or Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution to have a
jury determine the existence of all of the elements of a special circumstance.’ [Citation.]
This holding is now erroneous after Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 609, which
held that a jury—and not a judge—must find an ‘aggravating circumstance necessary for
imposition of the death penalty.’ ” (Prieto, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 256.) Moreover,
under Bunnell, “the defendant who submits his cause on the transcript does not give up
his right to any trial, only to a jury trial, and, unless otherwise specified, to present
additional evidence in his own defense.” (Bunnell, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 604.)
       In this appeal, the Attorney General makes no argument that the Court of Appeal’s
“ ‘independent finding’ ” on the intent to kill or aid in the killing renders Payne ineligible
for resentencing relief. Thus, we do not consider that appellate court finding in reaching
our decision in this opinion.
                                                   14
[Payne] had an intent to kill [Kathy] Hynan, it is reasonable to infer that the court
concluded no such intent was required. Even if the facts do not compel this conclusion, I
cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the court applied the correct law in this case.”
(Payne I, supra, A024288, at pp. 4–5 (dis. opn. of White, P. J).)
       In addition, the dissent disagreed with the majority’s independent finding that
Payne harbored the requisite intent to kill or to aid in the killing. The dissenting justice
opined that such a finding was not supported by the record as a matter of law. (Payne I,
supra, A024288, at p. 5 (dis. opn. of White, P. J).)
       The California Supreme Court denied review. (See Payne v. Borg (9th Cir. 1992)
982 F.2d 335, 338 (Borg).)
       D. Federal Habeas Corpus Proceeding
       Payne sought collateral relief in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The federal
district court granted relief, finding there was insufficient evidence to prove that Payne
harbored the requisite intent for the special circumstance finding. (See Borg, supra, 982
F.2d at pp. 336, 338.) The Attorney General appealed. In addition, Payne cross-appealed
from the district court’s denial of his alternative due process claims that alleged the court
of conviction failed to make a sufficient finding on the intent issue and the Court of
Appeal improperly presumed the trial judge found the requisite intent. (Id. at pp. 336–
337, 338.)
       A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. The two-judge
majority concluded “[s]ufficient evidence supported the state trial court’s conclusion that
Payne intended to help Williams kill [Kathy] Hynan, and restrained Michael Hynan in
order to accomplish that objective.”15 (Borg, supra, 982 F.2d at p. 343; see also id. at

       15
         The dissenting Ninth Circuit judge did not agree “that the evidence establishes
beyond a reasonable doubt that Payne restrained [Michael] Hynan knowing Williams was
going to kill [Kathy] Hynan and intending to help him accomplish that purpose.” (Borg,
supra, 982 F.2d at p. 343 (dis. opn. of Hall, J.).)
                                                 15
pp. 339–342.) In addition, the Ninth Circuit rejected Payne’s cross-appeal. (Id. at
p. 343.) The United States Supreme Court denied Payne’s petition for writ of certiorari.
(Payne v. Borg (1993) 510 U.S. 843.)
       E. 2022 Resentencing Petition and Resentencing Court’s Ruling
       In January 2022, Payne filed on his own behalf a petition for resentencing under
former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).
       The resentencing court appointed counsel for Payne and received briefing from the
parties. On April 27, 2022, the resentencing court held a hearing on Payne’s petition.
       Payne’s counsel argued that “[t]here was some ambiguity in the [court of
conviction]’s finding” and “[n]otwithstanding the finding by the appellate court, there
was not a specific trial court finding as to intent to kill.” The district attorney countered
that the court of conviction “necessarily made” the intent to kill finding “[b]ecause that
was the law back prior to 1991 for the special circumstance. And the court did make that
finding. [¶] And then the ambiguity that [Payne’s counsel] argues about was resolved
adversely to [Payne]” by other courts. Payne’s counsel replied that law of the case
should not apply under the present circumstances.
       The resentencing court denied Payne’s petition stating, at the hearing, that “the
record of conviction contains facts refuting the allegations in [the] petition” and Payne “is
ineligible for resentencing under [section 1172.6] as a matter of law.” The court also
issued a written order explaining its denial.
       In its written order, the resentencing court stated that, in reviewing the record, it
“d[id] not need to engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the
exercise of discretion.’ ” The court described the history of Payne’s direct appeal and
federal habeas corpus proceeding. The court noted that the Court of Appeal had
“concluded that the [] court [of conviction], sitting as the trier of fact, both found [Payne]
intended to kill and there was sufficient evidence of the same.” The court stated further,
“At the time of [Payne]’s conviction, section 190.2 required an aider and abettor to have
                                                 16
the intent to kill in order to find the felony murder special circumstance true.”16 (Italics
added.) The court observed that the disputed question regarding “whether the [] court [of
conviction] made the necessary findings was extensively litigated” and resolved against
Payne. The court explained, “This is the end of the matter as the intent requirement for
[Payne]’s pre-1991 special circumstances satisfies the requisite malice under the
amended sections 188 and 189.”
       Citing People v. Allison (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 449, 461 and People v. Coley
(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539 (Coley), the resentencing court concluded that section 1172.6
was “not a vehicle to attack issues already litigated and decided,” and “[n]ot only has
[Payne]’s intent been resolved by a finder of fact, but so has his claimed ambiguity about
the [] court [of conviction’s] findings.”17 The court further concluded that “[s]ince the
probative value of appellate opinions is case specific [citation], [Payne]’s collateral
estoppel and other arguments have no merit.”
       Payne appealed the resentencing court’s order denying his petition.
                                     II. DISCUSSION
       Payne contends the record of conviction does not conclusively demonstrate that he
intended to kill, which in turn requires that we reverse the resentencing court’s order and
remand for further proceedings. He asserts that given the court of conviction determined
the truth of the felony-murder special circumstance before Carlos, “it may not be
presumed that the [court of conviction]’s special circumstances verdict establishes that
Payne had the intent to kill.” He further contends “neither the verdict itself, nor the
supplementary comments made by the [court of conviction] concerning its true finding on

       16
           The Attorney General concedes this statement was error. The Attorney General
states that the resentencing court “incorrectly concluded that the felony-murder special
circumstance required a finding of intent to kill” at the time of Payne’s bench trial. We
accept the Attorney General’s concession based on our review of the law and the record.
        17
           After the resentencing court issued its decision, our Supreme Court disapproved
of Allison in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 718, footnote 3 (Strong).
                                                 17
the special circumstance unequivocally demonstrate that the court found Payne had the
intent to kill.”
       Additionally, Payne claims that issue preclusion cannot bar his petition at the
prima facie case stage, “[t]he resentencing court erred in using the Court of Appeal’s
conclusion that intent to kill was established by substantial evidence” as a basis to deny
his petition, and his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to
proffer a more complete record to the resentencing court (i.e., to include the material that
has been added to the appellate record through record augmentation) and by erroneously
conceding that at the time of Payne’s trial, the felony-murder special circumstance
required proof of an intent to kill.
       The Attorney General counters that “the record of conviction established as a
matter of law that in finding the felony-murder special circumstance true, the [] court [of
conviction] found beyond a reasonable doubt that [Payne] intended to kill or to aid in the
killing.” The Attorney General agrees with Payne that when the court of conviction
stated its findings at the conclusion of the bench trial, the California Supreme Court had
not yet decided Carlos—holding that a felony-murder special circumstance allegation
required a finding of an intent to kill. Nevertheless, the Attorney General asserts that “it
was not the [court of conviction’s] true finding on the special circumstance allegation in
and of itself that established [Payne]’s ineligibility for resentencing relief. It was the
Court of Appeal’s determination, buttressed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision, that the []
court [of conviction] found beyond a reasonable doubt that [Payne] intended to kill or to
aid in the killing that precluded [Payne]’s resentencing eligibility.” In other words, “[t]he
Court of Appeal’s conclusions regarding the [] court [of conviction]’s findings rendered
[Payne] ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law.”
       A. Legal Principles
       “Senate Bill [No.] 1437 ‘amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and
probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is
                                                  18
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, § l, subd. (f).)” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10
Cal.5th 830, 842.) However, the bill did not eliminate direct aiding and abetting liability
for murder “because a direct aider and abettor to murder must possess malice
aforethought.” (Id. at p. 848.)
       Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437) also added section 189, subdivision (e), to
narrow the application of the felony-murder rule. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 3; see Curiel,
supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 448.) “[S]ection 189, as amended, now limits liability under a
felony-murder theory principally to ‘actual killer[s]’ [citation] and those who, ‘with the
intent to kill,’ aid or abet ‘the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first
degree’ [citation]. Defendants who were neither actual killers nor acted with the intent to
kill can be held liable for murder only if they were ‘major participant[s] in the underlying
felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d)
of . . . [s]ection 190.2’ — that is, the statute defining the felony-murder special
circumstance.” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708, quoting § 189, subd. (e).18)
       “Senate Bill 1437 also created a special procedural mechanism for those convicted
under the former law to seek retroactive relief under the law as amended.” (Strong,
supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708.) When the trial court receives a petition under section 1172.6
requesting vacatur of a murder conviction and resentencing, and “containing the
necessary declaration and other required information, the court must evaluate the petition

       18
           Section 189, subdivision (e), provides: “A participant in the perpetration or
attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) 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.”
                                                  19
‘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. [Citations.] If, instead, the defendant
has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, ‘the court shall issue an order to
show cause.’ ” (Ibid., citing People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 970–972 (Lewis),
§ 1172.6, subd. (c).)
       During the prima facie stage of review, the trial court “may look at the record of
conviction . . . to determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie” showing.
(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6,
subdivision (c) is “limited.” (Ibid.) The 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.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘[A] court
should not reject the petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without first
conducting an evidentiary hearing.’ [Citation.] ‘However, if the record, including the
court’s own documents, “contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the petition,”
then “the court is justified in making a credibility determination adverse to the
petitioner.” ’ ” (Ibid.) Although the court may rely on the record of conviction
(including appellate opinions) in determining whether defendant has made a prima facie
showing, “ ‘an appellate opinion might not supply all answers,’ ” and the court “should
not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of
discretion.’ ” (Id. at p. 972; see also § 1172.6, subd. (d)(3) [“The court may [] consider
the procedural history of the case recited in any prior appellate opinion” at a post-order to
show cause evidentiary hearing].)
       An allegation that the petitioner could not currently be convicted of a homicide
offense because of changes made to homicide law by Senate Bill 1437 “is not refuted by
the record unless the record conclusively establishes every element of the offense.”
(Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 463.)
                                                  20
       “We independently review a trial court’s determination on whether a petitioner has
made a prima facie showing.” (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52.)
       B. Analysis
       Payne’s bench trial occurred prior to the California Supreme Court’s decision in
Carlos, which addressed an open question regarding whether section 190.2, subdivision
(a)(17) and former subdivision (b) required proof of an intent to kill for an actual killer or
an aider and abettor. (See Carlos, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 136, fn. 4.) Several months after
Payne’s conviction, the Carlos court concluded that section 190.2 “should be construed
to require an intent to kill or to aid in a killing as an element of the felony murder special
circumstance.” (Id. at p. 135.) The Garcia court later “concluded that because the
Carlos opinion does not overturn prior law, but stands as the first authoritative
construction by this court of the felony-murder provision of the 1978 initiative [(i.e.,
Prop. 7)], it should apply to all cases not yet final arising under that enactment.” (Garcia,
supra, 36 Cal.3d at pp. 544–545.)
       Although Payne and the Attorney General seemingly agree about the unsettled
state of the law at the time of Payne’s conviction, they offer differing views on the effect,
under section 1172.6, of the court of conviction’s burglary-murder special circumstance
and aider-and-abettor findings and the Court of Appeal’s conclusions in Payne I
concerning those findings.
       Regarding the court of conviction’s findings, Payne contends the court made
ambiguous “secondary” or “supplementary” statements when stating its findings on the
burglary-murder special circumstance and aider-and-abettor allegations. Relying
principally on People v. Grana (1934) 1 Cal.2d 565, 570 and section 1167, he further
asserts that the Court of Appeal in Payne I and, in turn, the resentencing court in denying
his petition should not have relied on those allegedly secondary or supplementary
statements. Alternatively, Payne argues that the court of conviction’s findings and
additional statements on the special circumstance and aider-and-abettor allegations were
                                                 21
ambiguous and “do not conclusively establish that the court [of conviction] found that
Payne had the intent to kill or to aid and abet an intentional killing.”
       We need not reach Payne’s claim regarding alleged improper reliance on
secondary or supplementary statements because, even taking those statements into
consideration, we reject the Attorney General’s contention that they conclusively
establish that Payne harbored an intent to kill or to aid in a killing. (See Strong, supra, 13
Cal.5th at p. 708; Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 463.)
       As described ante, when the court of conviction entered its findings against Payne
the law was unsettled. At that time, no precedent required the court of conviction to find
that Payne harbored an intent to kill in order to find the burglary-murder special
circumstance under section 190.2 true. As the Carlos court explained, neither
subdivision (a)(17) nor former subdivision (b) of section 190.2 made “clear whether an
intent to kill is an essential element of the special circumstance; paragraph 17 is silent on
that subject, subdivision (b) ambiguous.” (Carlos, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 135.)
Furthermore, “[u]nder the felony-murder doctrine as it existed at the time of [Payne]’s
trial, ‘when the defendant or an accomplice kill[ed] someone during the commission, or
attempted commission, of an inherently dangerous felony,’ the defendant could be found
guilty of the crime of murder, without any showing of ‘an intent to kill, or even implied
malice, but merely an intent to commit the underlying felony.’ ” (Strong, supra, 13
Cal.5th at p. 704.)
       Even though Payne’s trial counsel argued repeatedly that proof of an intent to kill
was required under section 190.2, the court of conviction never expressly stated in its
findings on the burglary-murder special circumstance allegation and the aider-and-abettor
allegation that Payne intended to kill. Rather, the court of conviction found the burglary-
murder “special circumstance is true” and stated that Payne “ ‘intentionally aided and
abetted in the commission of first degree murder’ ” by intentionally restraining Michael

                                                 22
“ ‘as Henry Lee Williams accomplished the first degree murder.’ ” (Payne I, supra,
A024288, at p. 7.)
       Similarly, when overruling Payne’s motion to modify, the court of conviction
failed to state expressly that it had found Payne harbored an intent to kill. Rather, in the
face of trial counsel’s argument that the evidence was insufficient “to the extent the court
found” Payne had “intentionally aided and abetted in the killing,” the court noted that the
issue of “what is required for the special circumstance finding” is “a complex one” and
“will be resolved by courts of much higher posture than this one.”
       The court of conviction’s findings at the close of Payne’s trial and its ruling on his
motion to modify evince uncertainty on whether “they necessarily reflect” (Curiel, supra,
15 Cal.5th at p. 465) a factual finding that Payne intended to kill. As the dissent in Payne
I explained with respect to the court’s aider-and-abettor finding, that “statement does not
indicate that the court found [Payne] had acted with intent to aid Williams in killing
[Kathy] Hynan,” because the determination that Payne intentionally aided and abetted
first degree murder could have encompassed only intentionally aiding and abetting “in
the underlying felony by his restraining of Michael Hynan even if this restraint could also
possibly be said to have aided Henry Williams in his killing of [Kathy] Hynan.” (Payne
I, supra, A024288, at p. 3 (dis. opn. of White, P. J.).)
       The dissent’s understanding of the court of conviction’s finding with respect to the
intent-to-kill element accords with our Supreme Court’s subsequent explication of section
190.2, former subdivision (b) in People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884. There, the
defendant contended that for the actus reus of the felony-murder special circumstance
under former subdivision (b) of section 190.2 and Anderson, “the prosecution was
required to prove, not only that he aided or abetted the burglaries and robberies, but also
that he ‘assisted in the killings themselves.’ ” (Dickey, at p. 900.) The Dickey court
rejected the defendant’s argument, explaining that “[s]ection 190.2, former subdivision
(b) is not helpful to defendant because, under the felony-murder doctrine, he was found
                                                 23
guilty of aiding or abetting first degree murders. All persons aiding or abetting the
commission of burglary or robbery are guilty of first degree murder when one of them
kills while acting in furtherance of the common design.” (Ibid.) The court also explained
that the defendant’s reliance on Anderson was “unfounded” because “[t]he proposition
advanced by defendant—for a felony-murder special circumstance, the aiding or abetting
has to relate to the act of killing itself, rather than just the underlying felony—was not
considered by the court in Anderson.” (Id. at p. 901.)
       Considering the view of the dissenting justice in Payne I and Dickey’s explication
of section 190.2, former subdivision (b), we cannot confidently conclude that the court of
conviction’s pre-Carlos finding—which mirrored former subdivision (b) and found that
Payne “ ‘intentionally aided and abetted in the commission of murder in the first
degree’ ” by “intentionally and illegally” restraining Michael as “Williams accomplished
the first degree murder”—necessarily included a finding that Payne intended to kill, as
currently required by section 189, subdivision (e)(2). (Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 7.)
       Under the present circumstances, and given that the court of conviction found
Payne guilty of first degree murder only under the former felony-murder rule that did not
require an intent to kill (or any malice) (see Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 704), we
decide that the court’s findings on the burglary-murder special circumstance and aider-
and-abettor allegations do not conclusively establish that Payne harbored an intent to kill.
In other words, the court of conviction’s findings “do not reflect all of the factual findings
necessary to support a murder conviction under current law. Thus, they do not refute
[Payne]’s allegation that he could not be convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189
as amended, and they do not establish conclusively that [Payne] is ineligible for relief.”
(Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 465.)
       Having decided that we are not “confident the [court of conviction] necessarily
found” (Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 467) that Payne intended to kill, we turn to the
Attorney General’s contention that Payne, nonetheless, is ineligible for relief under
                                                 24
section 1172.6, because of findings by the Court of Appeal. In Payne I the Court of
Appeal concluded “that ‘the [] court [of conviction] made the requisite finding of intent
to kill or to aid in the killing’ [citation] and did so beyond a reasonable doubt.”
       We do not agree that the majority opinion in Payne I establishes conclusively that
Payne is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. “[A]lthough an appellate opinion
affirming a conviction may be considered in determining whether a prima facie showing
has been made under section [1172.6], on prima facie review such an opinion may not be
conclusive.” (People v. Langi (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 972, 979; see Lewis, supra, 11
Cal.5th at p. 972.)
       The majority in Payne I stated it was “convince[d]” “that the [] court [of
conviction] made the requisite finding of intent to kill or to aid in killing.” (Payne I,
supra, A024288, at p. 7.) The majority, however, did not state the standard by which it
determined that the court had made the intent-to-kill finding. (See id. at pp. 7–9.) By
contrast, the dissent applied a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in concluding that
the circumstances failed to show the court found Payne had acted with the requisite
intent. (See id. at pp. 3–5 (dis. opn. of White, P.J.).) Given the split among the justices
in Payne I on their interpretation of the court of conviction’s finding on the aider-and-
abettor allegation, including the majority’s failure to articulate the standard under which
it was convinced that the court of conviction had found intent to kill, we cannot deduce
that the majority’s opinion conclusively demonstrates the court of conviction found
Payne harbored the intent-to-kill mens rea required by current law for a non-actual killer.
(See § 189, subd. (e)(2).)
       Furthermore, in Strong, our Supreme Court stated that “[s]ection 1172.6 offers
resentencing for petitioners who have not been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to
have the degree of culpability now required for a murder.” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at

                                                 25
p. 720.) The Strong court further explained that “[n]either the jury’s pre-Banks[19] and
Clark[20] findings [on a defendant’s major participation and reckless indifference to
human life] nor a court’s later sufficiency of the evidence review amounts to the
determination section 1172.6 requires, and neither set of findings supplies a basis to
reject an otherwise adequate prima facie showing and deny issuance of an order to show
cause.” (Ibid.)
       The present case is similar to Strong in that the court of conviction’s findings
(made before Carlos settled the felony-murder special circumstance law for aiders and
abettors) do not necessarily include the currently required beyond-a-reasonable-doubt
determination that Payne intended to kill. Moreover, the Court of Appeal’s interpretation
of the court’s findings is not equivalent to either a fact finder’s determination of the issue
at a trial or a resentencing court’s determination after a hearing afforded by section
1172.6, subdivision (d).
       As for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the federal habeas corpus proceeding, we
similarly decide that court’s interpretation of the court of conviction’s findings do not
render those findings conclusive as to a determination of the requisite mental state under
current law.
       We recognize that section 1172.6 is not “intended to permit wholesale relitigation
of findings supporting murder convictions.” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 715; see also
Coley, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 549; People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942,
947.) The question before us, however, is not the same that was examined by the Court
of Appeal or the Ninth Circuit. We must decide whether the court of conviction’s
findings and the appellate court decisions foreclose as a matter of law the possibility that
the burglary-murder special circumstance and aider-and-abettor allegations were found

       19
            People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788.
       20
            People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522.
                                                 26
true without a finding of an intent to kill. (See Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 470.) We
answer that question in the negative.
       Under our independent review of the record of conviction, we conclude that it
does not demonstrate the court of conviction expressly or necessarily found, before
Carlos, that Payne harbored an intent to kill. We further conclude that neither the split-
decision of the Court of Appeal interpreting the court of conviction’s burglary-murder
special circumstance and aider-and-abettor findings nor the Ninth Circuit’s similar
interpretation in federal habeas corpus proceedings makes Payne ineligible for relief
under section 1172.6, as a matter of law. Simply put, the record of conviction “do[es] not
reflect all of the factual findings necessary to support a murder conviction under current
law” and “establish conclusively that [Payne] is ineligible for relief.” (Curiel, supra, 15
Cal.5th at p. 465.)
       Because Payne’s petition made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief (see
Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 470–471; Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708; Lewis,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 970–972; § 1172.6, subd. (c)), we will reverse the resentencing
court’s April 2022 order and remand the matter with directions to issue an order to show
cause and hold further proceedings under section 1172.6.21 We express no opinion on
whether Payne’s section 1172.6 petition should be granted or denied following further
proceedings.
                                   III. DISPOSITION
       The resentencing court’s April 27, 2022 order is reversed, and the matter is
remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and conduct further
proceedings in accordance with Penal Code section 1172.6.

       21
         Having concluded that the resentencing court’s order denying Payne’s petition
must be reversed, we need not address Payne’s additional contentions that issue
preclusion should not apply in this case, the resentencing court erred in relying on the
Court of Appeal’s opinion to find substantial evidence of intent to kill, and his appointed
counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance before the resentencing court.
                                                27
                           ______________________________________
                                      Danner, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________
Greenwood, P. J.

____________________________________
Bromberg, J.

H050013
People v. Payne