If you were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, many courts have said you cannot get resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. On October 9, 2026, a California Court of Appeal said that rule does not apply when the jury was given a flawed instruction on what conspiracy to commit murder requires.
A 2005 Conviction, a 2022 Petition, and a 2026 Reversal
The case is People v. Reyes, a published decision of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two. The case came from Riverside County and grew out of a 2003 drive-by shooting at a home. Two codefendants fired the shots from a car. The woman in this case was in the car with them.
In 2005, a jury convicted her of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of attempted murder, and assault with a firearm. After an appeal and a resentencing, her term was 25 years eight months to life.
In 2022, she filed a petition to vacate her attempted murder convictions under what is now section 1172.6. The trial court denied it at the first step, called the prima facie stage. The judge reasoned that a conspiracy to commit murder conviction means the jury must have found she intended to kill. The Court of Appeal reversed.
What Section 1172.6 Does
Senate Bill No. 1437 took effect on January 1, 2019. It changed California murder law so that a person who did not act with malice cannot be convicted of murder just for taking part in a crime. Penal Code section 188 now says: “Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.”
The law also created a way for people convicted under the old rules to ask for relief. That process is now in section 1172.6. In 2021, the Legislature expanded it to cover attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Under that old doctrine, a person could be guilty of a crime someone else committed if it was a natural and probable result of a crime they helped commit.
A petition moves in stages:
- First, the court decides whether the petition makes a prima facie case. At this stage the court accepts the petitioner’s facts as true and should not weigh the evidence.
- If the petition makes that showing, the court must issue an order to show cause.
- Then the court holds a hearing. At that hearing, section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3), puts the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” under current law.
A petition can be denied at the first stage only if the record of conviction shows, as a matter of law, that the person is not eligible.
Why Prosecutors Said the Conspiracy Conviction Ended the Case
Conspiracy to commit murder requires an intent to kill. The California Supreme Court has said so more than once. Because of that, several Courts of Appeal have held that a conspiracy to commit murder conviction blocks section 1172.6 relief on related murder or attempted murder counts. The reasoning is simple. If the jury found that the person intended to kill, malice was not imputed to them. It was their own.
The prosecution relied on those cases here. It argued that the conspiracy conviction made the petitioner ineligible as a matter of law.
The Jury Instruction That Changed Everything
The problem was the instruction the jury heard in 2005. It was a version of CALJIC No. 8.69 that asked whether “at least two of the persons to the agreement” had the intent to kill. In People v. Garton (2018), the California Supreme Court called that version of the instruction erroneous.
The flaw is easy to miss. In a conspiracy with more than two people, a jury could find that two other members intended to kill. It could then convict the defendant without deciding whether she had that intent herself. As the Reyes court explained, the instruction allowed the jury to find she conspired to commit murder without finding that she intended to kill.
The jury was also told it could convict her of attempted murder if the shootings were a natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy. Put the two instructions together, and the jury could have convicted her of attempted murder without finding that she acted with malice. That is the kind of imputed malice section 188 now forbids.
Why Earlier Conspiracy Cases Came Out the Other Way
The court did not reject the earlier decisions. It distinguished them. In People v. Medrano (2021), People v. Medrano (2024), People v. Nguyen (2024), and People v. Lovejoy (2024), the juries were correctly instructed on conspiracy to commit murder. So when those juries convicted, they necessarily found that each defendant intended to kill.
Here, the jury could have convicted without that finding. Because it was possible that the jury relied on a theory that is no longer valid, the record did not rule her out as a matter of law.
What Happens Next for This Petitioner
The Court of Appeal sent the case back. The trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, the prosecution will have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under current law.
The court was careful about what it decided. It wrote that it expressed “no opinion” on whether she should be granted relief after the hearing. A ruling like this opens the door to a hearing. It does not decide the outcome.
What This Means if Your Petition Was Denied Early
This ruling is narrow, but it can matter for people convicted years ago. Some points to keep in mind:
- A conspiracy to commit murder conviction is not always the end of a section 1172.6 petition. The exact jury instructions matter.
- The record of conviction, including the jury instructions, can show whether a jury had to find intent to kill.
- At the prima facie stage, a court should not weigh evidence or make findings of fact.
- Each case turns on its own record, and a hearing does not guarantee relief.
The jury instructions from the trial are often the key document. Whether a post-conviction relief lawyer, a 1172.6 petition attorney, or a criminal appeal lawyer is reviewing a case, the instructions show what the jury actually had to find.
When to Call Mines Law Firm
We handle auto accident injury claims, and are accepting clients for those. If you are injured in an auto accident, that is when you should call us at 888-700-0093.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Responsible attorney: Jasmine Mines (State Bar No. 331135), Mines Law Firm, 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.