In re Loza
10 Cal. App. 5th 38
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Loza rode in a Ford Explorer with co-defendants Julio Perez and Eric Sanford; Sanford had a revolver in the vehicle. Loza suggested a “beer run” and agreed to hold the door for Sanford during the planned theft.
- At a 24‑hour Mobil station, Loza handed Sanford the gun (which had been stowed in the vehicle), covered his head with a shirt, and held the store door open while Sanford approached the register.
- Sanford threatened the clerks, counted down from five, and shot and killed both overnight clerks; Loza stayed at the door, fled with the shooter, and urged the driver to leave.
- Loza was convicted of two counts of first‑degree murder and two counts of attempted robbery; the jury found the robbery/burglary special circumstance true, and the court imposed consecutive life‑without‑parole terms.
- On habeas review after the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Banks, Loza argued insufficient evidence supported the section 190.2(a)(17) special circumstance because he was not a "major participant" who acted with "reckless indifference to human life."
Issues
| Issue | Loza's Argument | People/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to find Loza a "major participant" under §190.2(d) | Loza: he was a non‑killer, limited participant (held the door); not responsible for planning or arming shooter | He helped plan the theft, procured/handled the gun, was present and facilitated escape—thus a major participant | Court: substantial evidence supports major‑participant finding |
| Whether Loza acted with "reckless indifference to human life" under §190.2(d) | Loza: surprised/hysterical after the shootings; no subjective intent to facilitate killing | Prosecutor: Loza knew Sanford’s dangerousness, handed him the gun, observed the countdown, took no steps to prevent or assist victims | Court: jury could find Loza consciously disregarded a grave risk to life — reckless indifference established |
| Whether Banks/Clark changed the legal standard applicable to Loza’s special‑circumstance review | Loza: Banks requires reassessment under the Enmund‑Tison continuum | People: facts meet Banks/Clark factors; prior review was correct | Court: applying Banks and Clark, substantial evidence supports the special circumstance; habeas denied |
| Whether the claim is procedurally barred on habeas | Loza: merits review necessary because Banks postdates his direct appeal decisions | People: prior direct‑appeal/habeas denials and procedural bars apply | Court: did not reach procedural‑bar analysis because claim fails on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (a non‑killer aider/abettor may receive death/LWOP only if a major participant who acted with reckless indifference)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (explains reckless‑indifference and major‑participant factors and both subjective/objective recklessness elements)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (Eighth Amendment bars death for an aider/abettor who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend lethal force)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (major participation plus reckless indifference satisfies Enmund culpability requirement)