## Facts

- A jury convicted Vince E. Lewis of first degree premeditated murder arising from the killing of a fellow gang member.
- The prosecution proceeded on theories including aiding and abetting and the natural and probable consequences doctrine; a codefendant was alleged to be the actual shooter.
- After Senate Bill 1437 narrowed murder liability and created a resentencing procedure in Penal Code § 1170.95 (now renumbered § 1172.6), Lewis filed a resentencing petition and requested appointed counsel.
- The superior court denied the petition without appointing counsel and without a hearing, relying on the record of conviction and a prior appellate opinion to find Lewis ineligible.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding Lewis was not entitled to counsel unless and until he first made a prima facie showing of eligibility.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve (1) whether courts may consider the record of conviction at the prima facie stage and (2) when the statutory right to counsel arises.

## Issues

1. Whether, in evaluating a petition under Penal Code § 1170.95(c), a court may consider the record of conviction when determining if the petitioner has made the prima facie showing for relief.
2. When the statutory right to appointed counsel attaches in § 1170.95 proceedings, particularly at the prima facie stage.
3. Whether failure to appoint counsel before summary denial is structural error or subject to harmless-error review, and what standard applies.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded for a prejudice determination.
- A petitioner who files a facially sufficient § 1170.95 petition and requests counsel is entitled to appointed counsel before the court performs the prima facie review.
- Section 1170.95(c) provides for a single prima facie inquiry; the statute does not authorize an initial, pre-counsel screening stage.
- In making the prima facie determination, the court may consider the record of conviction, including prior appellate opinions, but may not engage in factfinding or resolve disputed factual questions reserved for a later evidentiary hearing.
- The failure to appoint counsel at this stage is state-law error reviewed for prejudice under the reasonable-probability standard of People v. Watson, not structural error requiring automatic reversal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 1170.95(c), once a petition satisfies the pleading requirements and is not facially barred, the court must appoint counsel if the petitioner requests it.
- The prima facie review contemplated by § 1170.95(c) is a single determination conducted after appointment of counsel and an opportunity for briefing.
- A court may consult the record of conviction at the prima facie stage to assess whether the petitioner could be entitled to relief under the amended murder liability rules, but it cannot weigh evidence or make credibility or other factual determinations.
- Denial of appointed counsel before summary denial is assessed for prejudice under a Watson reasonable-probability test focused on whether counsel and briefing could have changed the outcome of the prima facie ruling.

## Conclusion

The decision clarified that § 1170.95 requires appointment of counsel upon a facially sufficient, requested petition; permits limited reliance on the record of conviction during the single prima facie inquiry; and treats denial of counsel at that stage as harmless-error reviewable under Watson, requiring a remand to assess prejudice.


People v. Lewis, 11 Cal. 5th 952 (Cal. 2021)