People v. Guillory
Annotate this Case
Guillory, convicted in 2004 of kidnapping, carjacking, robbing, and murdering Curtis, claimed she qualified for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6(d) (effective January 1, 2019) because the jury rejected a special circumstances allegation that Guillory committed the murder during the course of a kidnapping. The new law eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as to murder and narrowed the felony murder exception to the malice requirement and requires that the perpetrator of felony murder was either the actual killer; aided and abetted the killer with the intent to kill; or was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Guillory argued that vacatur of a sentence is required “[i]f there was a prior finding by a court or jury that the petitioner did not act with reckless indifference to human life or was not a major participant in the felony.”
The court of appeal affirmed the denial of relief. There were viable bases for murder liability independent of the rejected special circumstances allegation. In such circumstances, section 1172.6,(d)(2) cannot plausibly be read to mandate automatic vacatur of the murder conviction and resentencing. The court also rejected Guillory’s claim that Proposition 57 applies retroactively to her case.
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.