People v. Hill

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, affirms the denial of Donald Ray Hill Jr.’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Hill argued that the trial court improperly relied on implied-malice principles and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of attempted murder under a currently valid theory. The opinion addresses the effect of Senate Bills 1437 and 775, prior jury findings and a no contest plea, and the applicable standards for section 1172.6 proceedings.

Holdings

1. Hill was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief on count 2 because the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine and instead was instructed on direct aiding and abetting and the requirement that Hill and the perpetrator intend to kill the victim.
2. Hill was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief on count 3 because the record conclusively established that he could still be convicted under current law and did not establish that he was convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
3. The trial court's reliance on implied-malice principles did not require reversal because the denial of the petition was legally correct, and appellate courts review the result rather than the trial court's reasoning.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by analyzing Hill's section 1172.6 petition under implied-malice principles.
2. Whether Hill was eligible for section 1172.6 relief on count 2 when the jury was instructed on direct aiding and abetting and intent to kill, but not on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
3. Whether Hill was eligible for section 1172.6 relief on count 3 after pleading no contest to attempted murder following a jury trial and reversal of the related murder conviction.
4. Whether any error at the evidentiary hearing required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed