The California Court of Appeal has upheld the murder conviction of Frank Monico Bazzo, affirming a lower court's decision that denied his petition for resentencing. The ruling, filed on November 10, 2026, affects Bazzo, who has been serving a life sentence since his conviction in 2008 for first-degree murder. This case highlights the complexities surrounding California's laws on aiding and abetting in murder cases.

Bazzo was convicted in 2008 under a direct aiding and abetting theory, meaning he was found guilty of facilitating a murder even though he was not the actual shooter. The jury also found that the murder was committed for financial gain and involved lying in wait, which are considered special circumstances under California law. The court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. After several years, Bazzo sought to have his conviction overturned, leading to this recent appeal.

Background

The case began when Bazzo was convicted of first-degree murder in 2008. The prosecution argued that he had paid someone to kill the ex-husband of his ex-wife, leading to a jury finding him guilty. In 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, and Bazzo's legal battles continued over the years.

In 2019, Bazzo filed a petition to vacate his murder conviction under California Penal Code section 1170.95, which was later updated to section 1172.6. This section allows defendants to seek resentencing if they could not have been convicted under current laws regarding murder. However, the trial court denied his petition, stating that the jury's findings indicated Bazzo had the intent to kill, making him ineligible for resentencing.

The Ruling

In its recent ruling, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Bazzo was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 because the jury had determined he acted with the intent to kill. The opinion stated, "The special circumstance findings necessarily required the jury to find Bazzo aided the killer in an intentional killing." This ruling was made by Justice Amin, with the concurrence of Presiding Justice McConnell and Justice Dato.

Additionally, the court addressed Bazzo's argument regarding an unpaid restitution fine. The court agreed that the fine, imposed over ten years ago, must be vacated as it is no longer enforceable. The court concluded, "Any remaining balance on Bazzo’s restitution fine must be vacated because more than 10 years have elapsed since the imposition of the fine."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Bazzo and others in similar situations. By affirming the denial of his resentencing petition, the court reinforced the legal principle that individuals convicted under aiding and abetting theories, with findings of intent to kill, may not benefit from the changes in California's murder laws. This decision clarifies the standards for eligibility under section 1172.6 and may influence future cases involving similar circumstances.

Moreover, the court's ruling on the restitution fine may set a precedent for other defendants who have faced long-standing financial penalties that have become unenforceable due to the passage of time. This aspect of the ruling could prompt discussions on how courts handle restitution fines in the future.

What's Next

Bazzo's conviction and the court's ruling can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any immediate plans for further legal action. As of now, Bazzo remains incarcerated, serving his life sentence.