Senate Bill 1437 rewrote California's felony murder rule. Since January 1, 2019, a person who did not kill, did not intend to kill, and was not a major participant acting with reckless indifference to human life can no longer be convicted of murder for a death that happened during a felony. Penal Code § 1172.6 makes the change retroactive, letting people convicted under the old rules petition to have their murder, attempted murder, or even certain manslaughter convictions vacated.

Thousands of Californians,  getaway drivers, lookouts, accomplices convicted for someone else's killing,  have already walked free through this process. And yet eligible people remain inside who have simply never filed. This guide from The Bulldog Law's criminal defense team explains exactly what SB 1437 changed, who can still be convicted of felony murder, who qualifies to petition under § 1172.6, and how the resentencing fight actually unfolds.

What Did SB 1437 Change About Murder Liability?

SB 1437 did two big things. It abolished murder liability under the "natural and probable consequences" doctrine. And it narrowed the felony murder rule so that malice can no longer be imputed to someone just for participating in a crime.

Under the old law, an accomplice to a robbery could be convicted of first-degree murder because a co-participant killed someone,  no intent to kill required, no personal dangerousness shown. The murder was simply "imputed." SB 1437 amended Penal Code § 188 to declare that malice,  the mental state that defines murder under PC § 187,  may not be imputed based solely on participation in a crime. With narrow exceptions, a defendant must personally act with malice aforethought to be guilty of murder.

It also wiped out the natural-and-probable-consequences theory for murder entirely. That was the legal doctrine that let juries convict an aider of murder because a killing was a "foreseeable" outcome of the lesser crime he intended. Even if the person never touched a weapon, never planned violence, and never expected anyone to die,  the old law said that was enough. SB 1437 said it wasn't.

The reform rests on the same principle that runs through all of mens rea law: punishment should track personal culpability, not proximity to someone else's violence. That idea,  simple as it sounds,  changed the lives of thousands of people serving decades for crimes someone else committed.

Why California Decided the Old Law Was Unfair

The old felony murder rule was built on convenience, not justice. It let prosecutors skip the hard question,  what did this specific person know and intend?,  and focus instead on guilt by association.

California's legislature looked at who was actually sitting in prison under those convictions. Many were young people who made a terrible choice to participate in a robbery or burglary, with no idea that anyone would die. Some were standing outside. Some were miles away. And yet they carried the same murder conviction as the person who pulled the trigger. SB 1437 was the legislature's answer to that problem.

How the Reform Changed the Standard for Malice

Before SB 1437, implied malice could be stretched to cover almost any co-participant in a dangerous felony. After, the law is direct: you cannot be convicted of murder unless the prosecution proves you personally harbored malice,  either express (you intended to kill) or implied (you consciously disregarded a substantial risk of death to another).

For anyone serving time based on the old standard, that shift is the foundation of every § 1172.6 petition filed today.

Who Can Still Be Convicted of Felony Murder in California?

After SB 1437, felony murder under amended § 189(e) reaches exactly three categories of participants in a qualifying felony where a death occurs. A defendant can be liable only if the prosecution proves they were:

• The actual killer,  the person who personally caused the death.

• An intent-to-kill aider,  not the killer, but one who, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, solicited, or assisted the actual killer in the murder.

• A major participant acting with reckless indifference to human life,  the battleground category, measured by the factors from People v. Banks and People v. Clark: the defendant's role in planning; knowledge that weapons would be used; presence at the scene; opportunity to restrain the killer or aid the victim; the duration of the crime; and awareness of the likelihood of lethal violence. A lookout who never entered, never armed, and never knew violence was coming fails this test,  which is exactly the point.

One statutory exception preserves broader liability where the person killed is a peace officer performing official duties (§ 189(f)). And an important contrast for anyone comparing legal systems: SB 1437 changed California law only. The federal felony murder rule remains fully intact, and federal defendants get none of this relief.

The Banks and Clark Test: What Courts Actually Look At

The Banks/Clark standard is where most hearings are won or lost. Courts do not just look at what happened,  they look at what this particular person knew, chose, and could reasonably have done.

Factors weighed in the petitioner's favor include: no weapon, a minor planning role, absence from the scene of the killing, no realistic ability to intervene, and youth at the time of the offense. Factors that hurt: orchestrating the crime, being armed, standing by during prolonged violence, or making statements that showed lethal expectation. The analysis is granular, fact-specific, and deeply personal,  which is why having experienced counsel matters so much.

What Is PC § 1172.6 Resentencing?

Section 1172.6 (formerly § 1170.95) is the retroactivity engine. It lets people convicted of murder under the old felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theories,  and, since SB 775, people convicted of attempted murder under NPC or of manslaughter by plea,  petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction.

SB 1437's authors understood that changing the rule going forward would be half a reform. So they built a full look-back: anyone whose conviction rests on a theory the new law abolished may file, no matter how old the case. SB 775, effective 2022, closed the gaps,  adding attempted murder convictions based on natural-and-probable-consequences, and manslaughter convictions taken by plea when the person was charged with murder and accepted the lesser deal the old law's leverage produced.

The petition is not an appeal and not a conventional post-conviction attack. It is its own statutory vehicle, with appointed counsel, a formal hearing, and the burden on the State.

How Many People Has This Law Actually Helped?

The numbers are striking. A September 2025 report by the California Policy Lab at the University of California found that, according to data through December 2024, 1,172 people initially convicted under the felony murder rule have had those charges vacated and been resentenced,  with 78% of them since released from prison. The median time those individuals had served before resentencing was over 14 years.

And the reform has not led to the public safety concerns some predicted. That same study found that recidivism rates for those resentenced were consistently and substantially lower than the general prison population,  with only 10% receiving any new conviction within three years, compared to 42% of total releases. Those are not the numbers of dangerous people being set free. They are the numbers of people who should not have been serving murder sentences in the first place.

Who Qualifies to File a 1172.6 Petition?

You qualify if three things are true: you were charged under a now-invalid theory, you were convicted (by verdict or plea) of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter, and you could not be convicted today under the amended law.

The people this describes: the getaway driver convicted of first-degree murder for a robbery gone wrong; the lookout; the co-participant tried on "foreseeability" instructions; the defendant who pled to manslaughter because the felony-murder charge made trial suicidal. Two clarifications the courts have settled in petitioners' favor are worth knowing.

First, the right to appointed counsel attaches at the prima facie stage (People v. Lewis),  you do not litigate this alone. Second, under People v. Strong, an old felony-murder special-circumstance finding made before the Banks and Clark decisions does not automatically bar a petition, because juries back then were never asked the questions that now control.

Actual killers and intent-to-kill aiders do not qualify,  the statute is honest about that. But "the jury found special circumstances" and "you pled guilty" are no longer the conversation-enders families assume they are.

If you are not sure whether someone you love qualifies, reach out to The Bulldog Law's criminal defense team. We handle these petitions across California, and an initial case review costs nothing.

What About People Convicted of Manslaughter or Attempted Murder?

SB 775, which took effect January 1, 2022, specifically extended § 1172.6 relief to two groups the original law left out. First, people who were convicted of attempted murder under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine. Second, people who accepted a plea to manslaughter when they were originally charged with murder under a now-invalid theory.

The logic behind the extension is the same as the original law: if the old legal theory was wrong, the convictions it produced,  whether by trial or by plea,  deserve review. Filing in those cases follows the same process as a standard § 1172.6 petition.

How Does the 1172.6 Process Work?

The petition moves through three stages: filing, prima facie review, and an evidentiary hearing where the prosecution must prove murder under today's law beyond a reasonable doubt. Here is how the sequence unfolds.

File the petition in the court that sentenced you, declaring the eligibility facts. The court appoints counsel on request.

Prima facie review,  the judge checks whether the record conclusively refutes eligibility (for example, a jury finding that the petitioner was the actual killer). If it does not, the court must issue an order to show cause. Doubts at this stage are resolved in the petitioner's favor.

Evidentiary hearing,  the decisive stage. The burden flips to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder under the law as amended,  as actual killer, intent-to-kill aider, or Banks/Clark major participant. The judge sits as an independent factfinder; both sides may present the trial record and new evidence.

Relief,  if the State cannot carry its burden, the murder conviction is vacated and the petitioner is resentenced on the remaining or underlying offenses with credit for all time served. For people who have already served a decade or more on the underlying felony, vacatur frequently means release.

What Happens After a Conviction Is Vacated?

Vacatur means the murder conviction is erased from the record and replaced with a sentence based on the underlying offense,  robbery, burglary, assault, or whatever the qualifying felony was. Credit for all time already served is applied against the new sentence. For many petitioners who have served 10, 15, or even 20 years, that credit alone results in immediate or near-immediate release.

It is also worth understanding what vacatur does not do automatically. It does not erase the underlying felony conviction. And if there are other charges or enhancements that were not subject to SB 1437 relief, those may remain. An experienced attorney can walk through exactly what relief would look like in any specific case,  which is why talking to a lawyer before filing is always the right move.

What Wins and Loses These Hearings?

The hearing is almost always a Banks/Clark trial-within-a-trial,  a granular fight over what this petitioner knew, did, and could have done in the minutes that mattered.

Petitions win on evidence that the client's role was peripheral: no weapon, no plan for violence, absence from the killing scene, no realistic ability to intervene, immediate flight or aid, youth at the time of the offense (a factor courts weigh in the reckless-indifference calculus). Petitions lose on evidence of orchestration, armed presence, standing by during prolonged violence, or statements showing lethal expectation.

Because the record of conviction is decades old and was built for a different legal question, the modern craft is reconstruction,  transcripts, witnesses, experts on the science of intent and culpability assembled to answer questions the original jury was never asked. The difference between murder and manslaughter and between degrees built on premeditation frames what the State must now prove against each individual,  not the group.

Honestly, the cases I've seen go sideways are almost always the ones where someone tried to handle the petition without a lawyer, submitted incomplete declarations, or failed to counter the prosecution's reconstruction of the facts. The petition exists. Fighting it well is the whole game.

How Important Is the Quality of the Petition?

Very. The prima facie stage looks easy on paper,  the court is just checking whether eligibility is possible, not certain. But a poorly drafted petition or a thin declaration can give a judge the basis to deny relief before a hearing ever happens. And once denied at prima facie, the path to getting back in front of a court is narrow.

A strong petition tells the petitioner's specific story: the facts of their role, the instructions the jury received, why those instructions relied on an invalid theory, and what the evidence shows about who they actually were in that crime. That is not a form you fill out,  it is a legal argument you build. For anyone whose loved one is still inside, that distinction is everything.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the felony murder rule in California now?

Since SB 1437 took effect in 2019, felony murder in California reaches only three kinds of participants in a qualifying felony where someone dies: the actual killer; a person who, with intent to kill, aided the actual killer; and a person who was a major participant in the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life under the Banks/Clark factors. Mere participation in the underlying crime is no longer enough, and the natural-and-probable-consequences theory of murder is abolished,  with a statutory exception preserving broader liability when the victim is an on-duty peace officer.

Who is eligible for PC 1172.6 resentencing?

Anyone convicted of murder under the old felony-murder rule or the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine,  by trial or by plea,  who could not be convicted of murder under the law as amended by SB 1437. Since SB 775, eligibility also includes attempted murder convictions based on natural-and-probable-consequences and manslaughter convictions taken by plea when the person was charged with murder. Counsel is appointed on request, and an old pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance finding does not automatically bar the petition under People v. Strong.

Can you file a 1172.6 petition if you pled guilty?

Yes. A plea does not disqualify you,  the statute expressly covers people who accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which they could have been convicted of murder under the old theories. SB 775 extended this to manslaughter pleas taken when murder was charged. The logic is straightforward: the old law's leverage produced those pleas, so the reform reaches them. The court will examine the record of conviction at the prima facie stage, but "you signed a plea form" is the beginning of the analysis, not the end of it.

Is SB 1437 retroactive?

Yes,  through the petition process, not automatically. SB 1437 applies to new cases by operation of law, and PC § 1172.6 extends the reform backward to convictions of any age. The petitioner files in the sentencing court, counsel is appointed, and if the prima facie showing is met, the prosecution must prove guilt under the current law beyond a reasonable doubt at an evidentiary hearing. No one's conviction is vacated without filing,  which is why eligible people are still serving time today on theories California abolished. The relief exists, but it must be claimed.

What is the difference between SB 1437 and SB 775?

SB 1437, signed in 2018 and effective January 1, 2019, was the original reform,  it narrowed the felony murder rule and eliminated the natural-and-probable-consequences theory for murder. SB 775, effective January 1, 2022, expanded the relief to cover attempted murder convictions based on NPC and manslaughter convictions obtained by plea when murder was originally charged. Together, the two bills form the complete framework for both the new substantive law and the retroactive petition process.

SB 1437 exists because California decided that people should serve murder sentences for their own choices,  not their co-defendant's. And § 1172.6 exists to make that promise real for the people convicted before the law caught up. If someone you love is serving time on a felony-murder or accomplice theory, the petition that changes everything has to be filed, built, and fought. The Bulldog Law's criminal defense team handles § 1172.6 petitions and resentencing across California. Contact the firm online or call (888) 928-1609 for a free, confidential case review.