The California Court of Appeal has reversed a lower court's decision that denied Reina Dolores Reyes the opportunity to seek resentencing for her conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder convictions. The ruling, filed on October 9, 2026, affects Reyes, who was convicted in 2005, and could have implications for others in similar situations. This case highlights the ongoing legal changes surrounding the definitions of intent and culpability in murder cases.
Reyes was convicted in 2005 alongside her brother Joe Varela and Tony Armster for their roles in a drive-by shooting that injured a victim. The jury found Reyes guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of attempted murder, and assault with a firearm. However, recent changes in California law have prompted her to seek resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, which allows individuals previously convicted under certain theories of liability to challenge their convictions.
The dispute began when Reyes filed a petition for resentencing, arguing that the jury instructions during her trial were flawed. Specifically, she contended that the instructions allowed the jury to convict her of conspiracy to commit murder without requiring them to find that she had the specific intent to kill. The trial court denied her petition, stating that her conspiracy conviction precluded her from seeking relief. This led to her appeal to the California Court of Appeal.
In its ruling, the court found that the trial court had erred in its decision. The court noted that the jury instructions given during Reyes's trial were problematic. The instructions allowed the jury to convict her of conspiracy to commit murder without requiring a finding of intent to kill. The court stated, "The conviction of conspiracy to commit murder consequently did not render Reyes ineligible for relief under section 1172.6." This ruling was made by Justice Menetrez, with concurrence from Acting Presiding Justice McKinster and Justice Fields.
The court emphasized that the jury's potential reliance on flawed instructions meant that Reyes could have been convicted under a now-invalid theory of liability. The ruling highlighted the importance of ensuring that jury instructions accurately reflect the legal standards required for a conviction. The court directed the trial court to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding Reyes's petition.
This decision has significant implications for Reyes and others who may have been convicted under similar circumstances. It underscores the ongoing legal reforms in California aimed at addressing issues of fairness and justice in the criminal justice system. The ruling could set a precedent for future cases where convictions were based on flawed jury instructions or outdated legal standards.
Moving forward, Reyes's case will return to the trial court for further proceedings, where the court will need to assess whether she is entitled to relief under the newly clarified legal standards. The ruling opens the door for potential resentencing, allowing Reyes to challenge her convictions based on the court's findings regarding her intent and culpability.
As for the next steps, the trial court must now issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding Reyes's petition. This process will allow both sides to present their arguments and evidence concerning her eligibility for resentencing. The outcome of this hearing will determine whether Reyes will receive a reduced sentence or if her convictions will stand.