People v. Johnson
Annotate this Case
The Court of Appeal consolidated these cases and affirmed the orders denying defendants' petitions to vacate their first degree murder convictions and obtain resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437, which added Penal Code section 1170.95.
The court held that defendants cannot seek relief under the felony-murder provision of section 1170.95, because they were convicted of provocative act murder, not felony murder. The court also held that defendants are not eligible for relief under the natural and probable consequences provision of section 1170.95; Defendant Baker-Riley was the direct perpetrator of the crimes committed during the home-invasion robbery and he was also a direct perpetrator of the acts that provoked another individual to fire his gun; and Defendant Johnson, although he was an aider and abettor, was not convicted of murder pursuant to the natural and probable consequences doctrine but, rather, was convicted under the theory that a principle in the commission of the target crime had committed a nontarget crime that was a natural and probable consequence of the target crime. Finally, the court rejected Johnson's legislative intent argument and equal protection argument.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.