People v. Charles CA1/3

Filed 2/5/25 P. v. Charles CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170300 v. FRANK CHARLES, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 143842) Defendant and Appellant.

Frank Charles appeals from an order summarily denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition, which sought to vacate his first degree murder and attempted murder convictions and resentencing thereafter.1 Relying on the jury instructions given at trial, he argues it was possible the jury found him guilty based on a theory of imputed malice. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND During Charles’s 2003 trial, the jury was given several pattern instructions defining murder, malice aforethought, and identifying aiding and abetting principles. The instructions noted each principal — “[p]ersons who are involved in [committing] a crime” — is “equally guilty,” regardless of the extent or manner of their participation. (CALJIC No. 3.00.) Principals

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Originally, this statute was numbered section 1170.95, but subsequent legislation renumbered it as section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For ease of reference, we refer to the current numbering. 1

include those “who aid and abet the [commission] of the crime.” (Ibid.) CALJIC No. 3.01 further explained that a “person aids and abets the [commission] of a crime when he . . . [¶] 1. With knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator and [¶] 2. With the intent or purpose of committing or encouraging or facilitating the commission of the crime, and [¶] 3. By act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime.” For murder, the trial court instructed the jury that it must find a “human being was killed,” and “the killing [was done with malice aforethought].” (CALJIC No. 8.10.) Additional instructions defined “malice aforethought,” noting that it may be express — “there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill a human being” — or implied — “1. The killing resulted from an intentional act, [¶] 2. The natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life, and [¶] 3. The act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.]” (CALJIC No. 8.11.) Other instructions explained, “All murder which is perpetrated by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing with express malice aforethought is murder of the first degree.” (CALJIC No. 8.20.) The court also instructed the jury on attempted murder, stating the prosecution must prove, among other things, “The person committing the act harbored express malice aforethought, namely, a specific intent to kill unlawfully another human being.” (CALJIC No. 8.66.) The jury found Charles guilty of first degree murder, and that he was armed with a firearm in the offense but did not personally and intentionally discharge a firearm. It also found him guilty of attempted murder, committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. In addition, it found he committed the attempted murder while armed with a firearm. The 2