Skip to content
Name: People v. Hollywood (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 66 — Depublished
Case #: B323018
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 02/28/2024
Subsequent History: Review denied and depublished 5/15/2024 (S284451)

Trial court properly denied Penal Code section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage because the record showed petitioner aided and abetted a kidnapping with intent to kill. Hollywood was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping, and the jury found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission of a kidnapping and with intent to kill. He later filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, which was denied at the prima facie stage. On appeal, Hollywood argued that the record of conviction did not establish the actus reus requirement in section 189(e)(2)—that he aided and abetted the actual killer during the commission of murder with the intent to kill. Held: Affirmed. Agreeing with the majority opinion in People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566 and the People, the Court of Appeal concluded Hollywood is ineligible for relief as a matter of law because aiding and abetting an enumerated felony under Penal Code section 189 with the intent to kill suffices to constitute felony murder under section 189(e)(2) and such a finding precludes a petitioner from section 1172.6 relief. [Editor’s Notes: (1) While recognizing that the Supreme Court has held that a trial court should not weigh the evidence at a prima facie hearing, the Court of Appeal concluded that “[t]here must, of necessity, be an exception where the trial judge ruling on resentencing, heard the evidence at a death penalty trial and where the Supreme Court recites these facts in the same case [in a pretrial ruling addressing recusal of the prosecutor].” (2) Justice Cody wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that Hollywood’s conviction for aiding and abetting an enumerated felony murder under section 189(e)(2) with intent to kill precludes relief under section 1172.6. However, she did not agree that factfinding was appropriate at the prima facie stage in this case.]