People v. Lopez

── People v. Lopez ── Court: California Supreme Court Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant. S287814 Fifth Appellate District F085300 Stanislaus County Superior Court 1073884 April 30, 2026 Justice Evans authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Wilson* concurred. __________________________ * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.  PEOPLE v. LOPEZ S287814 Opinion of the Court by Evans, J. In 2007, appellant Robert Lopez was convicted of the murder of Daniel Morales, assault with a deadly weapon, and participation in a criminal street gang. As to the murder and the assault, the jury imposed enhancements based on the crimes being committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code,1 former § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and because a principal personally used a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1).) The convictions stemmed from an incident in which Lopez, then 16 years old, codefendant Manuel Domingo Hernandez, then 24 years old, and two others confronted perceived gang rivals outside a taco truck in Modesto, ultimately resulting in the fatal shooting of Morales. Subsequently, the Legislature significantly altered the scope of murder liability. (Sen. Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437); Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 3.) Among other changes, Senate Bill 1437 amended Penal Code section 188 to require that “a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought,” which “shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (3).) Under Senate Bill 1437, the Legislature also created a resentencing procedure for defendants who had previously been convicted of murder under prior law. (Former § 1170.95, 1 All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1  PEOPLE v. LOPEZ Opinion of the Court by Evans, J. added by Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, subsequently renumbered as § 1172.6 by Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) As amended in 2021 by Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 775), section 1172.6 makes eligible for resentencing persons convicted of murder pursuant to any “theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) Under section 1172.6, petitioners can seek resentencing when three conditions are met: (1) “[a] complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine”; (2) “[t]he petitioner was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder or attempted murder”; and (3) “[t]he petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6, subds. (a)(1)–(3).) In January 2019, Lopez filed a pro per petition under what is now section 1172.6, alleging that he should be resentenced because he could not now be convicted of murder because of the changes to