Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Daniel Rodriguez pleaded no contest to the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Miguel Alvarez and admitted firearm and gang allegations. He was sentenced in 2011 to a total of 29 years in state prison, comprising the upper term of 9 years for attempted murder and a 20-year firearm enhancement. His 2022 petition under Penal Code section 1172.6 proceeded to an evidentiary hearing after the prosecution conceded a prima facie case. The parties submitted no new evidence, relying instead on the record of conviction. The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodriguez was a direct aider and abettor acting with express malice and denied relief.
The evidence described Rodriguez driving armed fellow Rascals gang members into Toonerville territory shortly after a Rascals member was killed and Toonerville members were arrested. After the passengers questioned Erick Rodriguez about gang affiliation and shouted gang slurs, Rodriguez reversed the SUV and stopped in front of a driveway. Gurrola and Aguilar fired down the driveway toward Alvarez, who was wounded. Rodriguez remained there during the shooting before driving away. A gang expert described the gangs as bitter rivals and characterized such an incursion as likely retaliation.
Codefendant Iban Manuel Ma Gurrola, a front-seat passenger who personally fired a handgun, separately sought section 1172.6 relief. The trial court found that he was a direct perpetrator acting with intent to kill or, at minimum, aided Aguilar with that intent. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief under People v. Delgadillo. After the court ensured notice of Gurrola’s opportunity to submit his own arguments, he filed nothing, and the court dismissed his appeal as abandoned.
The Court’s Holding
The court reviewed the trial court’s evidentiary-hearing findings for substantial evidence, viewing the record favorably to the prosecution and drawing reasonable inferences supporting the ruling. It explained that section 1172.6 does not authorize resentencing where the petitioner was convicted as a perpetrator or direct aider and abettor rather than under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine or another theory imputing malice solely from participation in a crime. At the hearing, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner remained convictable under the amended law.
Attempted murder requires express malice—the specific intent to kill the alleged victim—and transferred intent cannot supply that element. Rodriguez argued that the evidence did not show he intended to kill Alvarez rather than Erick Rodriguez or another bystander. The court rejected that argument based on the sequence of events: Rodriguez transported armed companions into rival territory, heard their gang challenge and slurs, returned to the original location, positioned the SUV for a clear shot down the driveway, and stayed while Aguilar fired toward Alvarez.
Witness testimony further identified Alvarez as the target. Alvarez said Aguilar pointed a handgun directly at him before he was shot almost immediately. Erick said the passengers initially pointed guns toward him but fired down the driveway toward a man walking there. The court noted the absence of evidence that anyone else was in the driveway or that either shooter aimed at another person. It therefore affirmed the denial of Rodriguez’s petition and found it unnecessary to address the alternative kill-zone theory.
Key Takeaways
- A section 1172.6 petitioner is ineligible for resentencing when substantial evidence supports conviction as a direct aider and abettor acting with express malice.
- The driver’s return to the scene, positioning of the SUV, and decision to remain during the shooting supported an inference that he shared the shooters’ intent to kill Alvarez.
- Testimony that the gunfire was directed down the driveway at Alvarez answered Rodriguez’s argument that the intended victim may have been a bystander instead.
- Because specific intent to kill the named victim was sufficiently established, the court did not decide whether an alternative kill-zone theory could apply.
- Gurrola’s separate appeal was dismissed as abandoned after his counsel raised no issues and he submitted no supplemental brief or letter following notice.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the named-victim requirement for attempted murder to a driver’s section 1172.6 petition without treating gang evidence or participation in a group shooting as automatically sufficient. The court instead relied on particular movements of the vehicle, the direction of the gunfire, and testimony identifying Alvarez as the person targeted. Those facts supported both Rodriguez’s assistance to the shooters and his shared specific intent.
The opinion also maintains a clear distinction between transferred intent and direct aiding and abetting. Although intent cannot be transferred from one attempted-murder victim to another, a driver may remain liable when evidence shows he intentionally facilitated an attack on the actual named victim. The affirmance left the trial court’s denial intact, while Gurrola’s abandonment produced a separate dismissal rather than a merits ruling on his petition.