People v. Curry CA1/4

Filed 10/16/25 P. v. Curry CA1/4 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167782 v. RENARD RICKY CURRY, (Contra Costa County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 05001407857)

This case comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court with directions to vacate our decision reversing the denial of Renard Ricky Curry’s Penal Code section1172.61 resentencing petition and to reconsider the cause in light of the recently decided People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (Patton). Patton disapproved case law limiting the trial court’s ability to consider preliminary hearing testimony in determining whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to resentencing. (Id. at pp. 568–569 & fn.12.) In view of this, we now affirm the trial court’s order.

1 Originally codified as section 1770.95 and renumbered effective

June 30, 2022, with no change in the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, §10.) For ease of reference, we use the current citation throughout. Unless otherwise noted, further undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code

BACKGROUND 1. Legal Principles Effective 2019, the Legislature amended our state’s felony murder law “ ‘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. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 (Lewis).) Subsequent legislation clarified that relief under section 1172.6 extends to manslaughter and attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (People v. Glass (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 922, 926; Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 558.) As a consequence, malice may no longer be imputed to a homicide defendant solely because they participated in another crime. (Patton, at p. 558.) A defendant seeking relief from a murder conviction under a theory disallowed by these amendments may petition the trial court to vacate the conviction and for resentencing on any remaining counts. (§1172.6, subd. (a).) To do so, the petitioner must first file a facially sufficient petition stating that, among other allegations, he or she could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder due to the 2019 amendments. (§1172.6, subds. (a), (b)(1)(A); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at pp. 558–559.) If the court finds the petition facially sufficient, the petitioner is appointed counsel; the prosecution must, and the petitioner may, submit briefing; and the court holds a hearing to determine whether the petition establishes a prima facie case for relief. (§1176.2, subd. (c); Patton, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 559.) At this stage the court may not reject the petition’s factual allegations on credibility grounds unless they are refuted by facts in the underlying record of conviction. (Patton, at p. 563; Lewis, supra,