People v. Mohammed CA2/6

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Mohammed CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B343784 (Super. Ct. No. 1455141) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Babara County)

v.

ALI ABDUL MOHAMMED,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ali Abdul Mohammed appeals a post-judgment order denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition to vacate his 2018 first degree murder conviction, which was based on a felony- murder theory.1 Section 1172.6 provides in relevant part, “A person convicted of felony murder . . . may file a petition . . . to have the petitioner’s murder . . . conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts” when certain conditions apply.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that appellant had committed the murder during the commission of an attempted robbery. He was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole. We affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. White & Mohammed (Apr. 9, 2021, B293313), 2021 WL 1326760, 2021 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2309 (White I).) Lavell White was appellant’s accomplice and was jointly tried with appellant. Appellant contends he is eligible for section 1172.6 relief because the trial court did not instruct the jury sua sponte on the Banks/Clark factors concerning the meaning of “reckless indifference to human life.” (People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788; People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522.) At the prima facie stage of the section 1172.6 proceeding, the superior court initially accepted appellant’s contention and issued an order to show cause. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) This normally would have been followed by an evidentiary hearing. (Id., subd. (d).) But the court subsequently denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing because counsel for both parties agreed that it was “bound by [our] holding” in People v. Superior Court (White) (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1268 (White II), review granted March 26, 2025, S289395. The superior court did not err in determining that it was bound by our decision in White II. We reaffirm the validity of our conclusions in that decision. Accordingly, we affirm. Prima Facie Showing Requirement and Standard of Review “Petitioners seeking relief under section 1172.6 must, first, file a facially valid petition that states the statutory requirements for relief [citation], and second, make a ‘prima facie