People v. Amaya CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Feb 14, 2024 No. G061860Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 because he was convicted of murder as a direct aider and abettor or co-conspirator, both of which remain valid theories of liability requiring intent to kill.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 when the jury was instructed on direct aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit murder.
Whether a conviction based on an uncharged theory of conspiracy to commit murder constitutes a valid theory of murder liability under current law.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Although Amaya was not the actual killer, the record of conviction shows the jury found him guilty as either a direct aider and abettor or co-conspirator to murder.”

“Because both theories are still valid theories of murder liability, Amaya is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.”

“Because the jury convicted Amaya of murder under one of these theories, not under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.”

Filed 2/14/24 P. v. Amaya CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061860

v. (Super. Ct. No. 02NF0294)

JOSE ALFREDO AMAYA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed. Joseph F. Walsh 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 Randall D. Einhorn, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2003, a jury found Jose Alfredo Amaya guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 among other offenses. The jury found true the gang- murder special circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)), the criminal street gang sentencing enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and the vicarious gang-related firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). Amaya was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder, consecutive to a term of 25 years to life for the vicarious firearm enhancement. Amaya later petitioned for relief from his murder conviction under former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).2 He argued the jury was instructed on theories permitting it to impute malice to him based on the actions of his codefendant, Alex Zapien. The trial court denied the petition for failure to state a prima facie case. We affirm. Although Amaya was not the actual killer, the record of conviction shows the jury found him guilty as either a direct aider and abettor or co-conspirator to murder. Because both theories are still valid theories of murder liability, Amaya is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. FACTS I. The Murder of Bobby Sayamontry

People v. Amaya CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

JOSE ALFREDO AMAYA, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II. Jury Instructions and Conviction

DISCUSSION

DELANEY, J.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

AI Brief