By the The Bulldog Law Criminal Defense Team • Reviewed by a licensed California criminal defense attorney

A charge of attempted murder is one of the most serious things that can happen to a person in California. It carries the shadow of a murder sentence,  and in some cases, it carries life in prison. But here is the thing most people do not realize: attempted murder charges are built on what prosecutors believe was inside someone's mind during seconds of chaos. That belief is not always right. And it is absolutely contestable. This guide from The Bulldog Law's criminal defense team breaks down how Penal Code §§ 664/187 works, what the sentences actually look like, and where the defense fights,  and wins.

What Is Attempted Murder Under California Penal Code §§ 664/187?

Attempted murder under California law is charged when the prosecution believes someone took a direct step toward killing another person,  but the victim survived. The charge combines two statutes: Penal Code § 187, which defines murder, and Penal Code § 664, which governs the punishment for attempts to commit crimes. Together, they create one of the most serious felony charges in California's criminal code.

Two elements must both be proven for a 664/187 conviction: a direct step toward the killing, and specific intent to kill that particular person. Both are required. If either is missing, the charge cannot stand.

The Direct Step: More Than Just Planning

The direct step element rules out people who thought about something or talked about it but never acted. Planning, researching, or even buying a weapon does not cross the line by itself. The law requires conduct that goes beyond preparation,  something that actually puts the plan in motion.

Firing a weapon, stabbing, an ambush that begins,  these clearly qualify. But cases get harder at the edges. What about an interrupted plot, where police stopped someone before they ever reached the victim? Those situations generate their own litigation, and the line between "preparing" and "attempting" is a real battleground in many PC 664/187 cases.

Specific Intent to Kill: The Element That Decides Everything

This is where attempted murder defense lives and dies. Unlike completed murder,  where implied malice (a conscious disregard for human life) is enough to convict,  attempted murder demands actual, specific intent to kill. The prosecutor must prove the defendant's purpose was death, not injury, not fear, not dominance. Death.

That single doctrinal difference creates the entire defense territory. A shot fired at someone's legs. A single punch in a brawl. A warning shot gone wrong. A swerve that nearly hit someone. All of these are consistent with intent to injure, frighten, or repel,  none of which is intent to kill. And if the intent to kill is not there, the charge is not attempted murder.

How the Sentences Work: Life vs. a Determinate Term

Two Tracks, One Charge

The sentences for California attempted murder are built like murder's shadow. Attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder carries life in prison with the possibility of parole. Attempted murder without a premeditation finding carries a determinate term of 5, 7, or 9 years in state prison.

Both are strikes under California's Three Strikes law. Both are violent felonies requiring 85% of the sentence to be served. And both are stackable with the 10-20-life firearm enhancements under Penal Code § 12022.53,  which add 20 years for firing a gun, or 25 years to life for causing great bodily injury. In a gun case, the enhancement often exceeds the base term. The numbers are staggering, and they are why early, expert-driven defense work matters so much.

Each Victim Is a Separate Count

One thing that surprises many people: in a multi-victim shooting or attack, each intended victim is a separate attempted murder count. If the prosecution files five counts, each carries its own life exposure. That is where multi-count filings become an entirely different kind of problem,  and why understanding the kill zone doctrine matters so much in spray-of-shots cases.

Premeditation: The Second War Inside the First

What Premeditation Actually Requires

Even where intent to kill is proven, the sentence forks sharply on a second finding: was the attempt willful, deliberate, and premeditated? The answer to that question is the difference between life in prison and a 5-to-9-year term. So the premeditation allegation is effectively a second trial inside the first.

Premeditation does not require days of careful planning. Courts have said that cold calculation can form quickly,  in moments. But it does require deliberation rather than rash impulse. And the classic attempted murder fact patterns,  bar fights that escalated, sudden discoveries, road confrontations, chaotic group violence,  are exactly where deliberation is hardest to prove.

The Doctrines That Attack Premeditation

Provocation, intoxication, fear, and the sheer speed of events all attack the deliberation finding. If the evidence shows the defendant reacted to something in the heat of the moment, rather than forming a calculated plan, the premeditation allegation is in genuine trouble.

Two related doctrines do parallel work. Heat-of-passion and imperfect self-defense,  the honest-but-unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary,  can reduce an attempted murder charge to attempted voluntary manslaughter. That reduction represents a fraction of the exposure. The same doctrines that reduce completed homicides apply here, and they carry the same enormous sentencing significance. Understanding the full scope of how heat-of-passion works in homicide law is something we cover in our breakdown of manslaughter versus murder in California.

The Kill Zone Doctrine: A Narrowed Theory in Multi-Victim Cases

What the Kill Zone Theory Does

In cases where a defendant shoots into a group trying to kill one person, prosecutors have used the kill zone theory to stack attempted murder counts for every person in the area. The logic: if you fired to kill everyone around your target as the means of reaching your target, you intended to kill each person in that zone.

This theory was a powerful prosecutorial tool for years,  and it still is, when properly applied.

How People v. Canizales Changed Everything

In 2019, the California Supreme Court dramatically narrowed the kill zone doctrine. According to the Court's decision in People v. Canizales (2019), a jury may only convict under the kill zone theory when the evidence supports a finding that the defendant intended to kill everyone in the zone as the specific means of killing the primary target,  not merely that bystanders were endangered.

That is a much higher bar than the older, broader version of the theory. The evidence must show the only reasonable inference is that the defendant intended a zone of fatal harm,  not just danger, not just recklessness, but a purpose that every person in the area would die. Courts now reject kill zone instructions in ordinary multi-shot cases where the evidence shows nothing more than reckless endangerment of bystanders.

If your case stacks multiple attempted murder counts on a single volley of shots, the post-Canizales limits on the kill zone theory are a primary defense attack,  one capable of collapsing multiple life exposures into a single contested count.

The Defense Ladder: How 664/187 Cases Actually Resolve

Honestly, most attempted murder filings are opening positions. Prosecutors charge high and let inferences do the arguing. Experienced defense teams work the ladder down,  and that work happens in the first weeks, not on the eve of trial.

Attack Intent to Kill,  The ADW Reduction

The single largest movement in these cases is the reduction from attempted murder to assault with a deadly weapon (PC § 245). ADW punishes attempting violent injury with a weapon,  up to 4 years. Attempted murder requires the specific purpose that the person die,  up to life. The difference in exposure between these two charges is the difference between a few years and the rest of a life.

The same shooting can be either charge. What decides it is physical evidence: where wounds landed, how many shots were fired, from what distance, whether the attacker stopped when they could have continued. Defense reconstruction,  with trajectory experts, wound analysis, and scene evidence,  argues that the conduct is consistent with intent to injure or frighten, not intent to kill. Understanding the full legal landscape of the assault side of this ladder is something we cover in our guide to assault with a deadly weapon versus assault with a firearm in California.

Attack Premeditation,  Life Becomes 5/7/9

Even where intent to kill survives the first attack, the premeditation finding can be defeated. Provocation, the speed of events, intoxication, and the chaos of confrontational situations all undermine deliberation. Moving a case from a life sentence to a 9-year cap,  or lower,  is one of the most significant outcomes in violent crime defense.

Self-Defense: Complete and Imperfect

Complete self-defense produces an acquittal when the defendant's belief in the need for deadly force was reasonable. Imperfect self-defense,  the honest-but-unreasonable belief in deadly peril,  reduces the charge to attempted voluntary manslaughter, with far lower sentencing exposure. Fear-soaked confrontations are exactly where these doctrines live. Our team builds these defenses through the full evidence of the incident: the victim's conduct, the threat as the defendant perceived it, the injuries on both sides, and the timeline of events. For a deeper look at how voluntary manslaughter defenses function in California homicide law, our coverage of California Penal Code 192 and manslaughter defense goes through each category in detail.

Enhancement Litigation: Sentencing's Main Event

In gun cases, the Penal Code § 12022.53 firearm enhancements often produce more prison time than the base sentence. The structure: personal use of a firearm adds 10 years; personally discharging a firearm adds 20 years; discharge causing great bodily injury adds 25 years to life,  all consecutive, all on top of the base term.

Contesting personal use, the great bodily injury nexus, and moving courts to strike enhancements in the interest of justice is where sentencing battles are won. Courts have discretion to strike these enhancements, and that discretion is exercised through advocacy,  not automatically. Our full breakdown of California's 10-20-Life Law under Penal Code § 12022.53 covers how these enhancements are challenged and what arguments actually move courts.

Identification, Gang Allegations, and Immigration Exposure

Night-time chaos, cross-racial identifications, multi-shooter scenes, and limited lighting carry every classic eyewitness reliability weakness. The standard audit applies: lineup procedures, prior descriptions, opportunity to observe, and the presence of stress and adrenaline that research shows degrade memory.

Gang allegations riding on attempted murder charges face new limits under AB 333, which significantly tightened what prosecutors must prove to sustain a gang enhancement. Each gang count deserves its own challenge.

For non-citizens, an attempted murder charge creates immediate and potentially permanent immigration consequences. Immigration-safe structuring,  including outcome design that avoids aggravated felony admissions,  belongs in the defense strategy from the moment of arrest, not as an afterthought at sentencing.

The Murder Charge Context: Why Early Defense Matters

Attempted murder charges are closely related to their completed counterparts, and understanding how California prosecutes PC § 187 murder helps illuminate what prosecutors are trying to build in an attempted murder case. The intent, premeditation, and self-defense doctrines run in parallel. Our coverage of Los Angeles murder defense under PC § 187 walks through the same doctrines as they apply in completed homicide cases,  the framework is the same, and a defense attorney who understands one understands both.

According to California Legislative Information, Penal Code § 664 provides that anyone who attempts to commit any crime but fails or is prevented from completing it shall be punished,  and for attempted murder specifically, the statute creates the two-track sentencing structure that separates premeditated attempts (life) from unpremeditated ones (5, 7, or 9 years). The intent inference is what drives the charging decision, and it is exactly what the defense attacks.

The pattern is consistent: 664/187 filings are opening positions. Built on inferred intent and the doctrines above, they are how prepared defenses move these cases,  early and in writing, before the inference hardens into something harder to dislodge.

The Bulldog Law's criminal defense team defends 664/187 cases across California. Contact the firm online or call (888) 928-1609 24/7.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many years is attempted murder in California?

Two tracks: attempted premeditated murder carries life with the possibility of parole; attempted murder without premeditation carries 5, 7, or 9 years. Both are strikes and violent felonies (85% custody), and firearm enhancements stack dramatically,  plus 20 years for personally firing a gun, plus 25-to-life if the shot caused great bodily injury. In a gun case, the real sentence exposure often far exceeds the base term. Each intended victim is a separate count. The spread between "life" and "a determinate term",  and between attempted murder and assault,  is decided by the intent and premeditation doctrines, which is where the defense war is fought.

What is the difference between attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon?

Intent to kill versus intent to harm. ADW under PC § 245 punishes attempting violent injury with a weapon or deadly force,  up to 4 years. Attempted murder requires the specific purpose that the person die,  up to life. The same shooting can be either charge, and the evidence that sorts them is physical: where wounds landed, how many shots were fired, from what distance, whether the attacker stopped when they could have continued. Prosecutors file high and let the inference argue. Defense reconstruction argues back. The ADW resolution of an attempted murder filing is among the most valuable outcomes in violent crime practice.

Can attempted murder charges be reduced or dismissed?

Regularly,  because the charge rests on inferred intent, and inferences are contestable. The reduction ladder: to ADW when intent-to-kill fails; from life to 5/7/9 when premeditation fails; to attempted voluntary manslaughter when heat-of-passion or imperfect self-defense applies; and outright acquittal on complete self-defense or identification failure. Enhancement litigation moves years separately. What makes the difference is early, expert-driven work,  trajectory and wound analysis, scene reconstruction, complete video review,  because the intent inference hardens as the case ages. If a 664/187 count has been filed against you or a family member, the doctrine-by-doctrine review belongs in the first month, not on the eve of trial.

What is the kill zone theory?

A doctrine for multi-victim charging: when an attacker tries to kill a primary target by using lethal force broad enough to kill everyone in the area, prosecutors may charge attempted murder for each person in that zone. But the California Supreme Court in People v. Canizales (2019) sharply narrowed the theory. The evidence must show the defendant intended to kill everyone in the zone as the specific means of reaching the primary target,  not merely that bystanders were endangered. Courts now reject kill zone instructions in ordinary multi-shot cases. If your case stacks attempted murder counts on a single volley, the post-Canizales limits are a primary defense attack capable of collapsing multiple life exposures into one contested count.

What should I do immediately if I am charged with attempted murder?

Do not speak to investigators or anyone else about what happened. This is the most important step. Attempted murder detectives are highly trained interrogators, and the most common mistake defendants make is believing they can explain their way out of the charge. You cannot do that without a lawyer. Call a California criminal defense attorney immediately. The intent inference that drives these charges is built in the first hours and days after an arrest,  from your statements, from physical evidence at the scene, from witness accounts that get locked in early. The earlier defense work begins, the more of the ladder there is to climb down. The Bulldog Law's criminal defense team is available 24/7,  contact us online or call (888) 928-1609.