In re Lucero
200 Cal. App. 4th 38
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lucero and Tabios shot at an occupied car, killing one occupant; both convicted of second-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder with firearm enhancements; Chun later overruled Hansen and disapproved Tabios, affecting petition grounds.
- Lucero sought habeas relief arguing Chun should retroactively apply to vacate or modify the murder verdict.
- Trial court denied relief; Lucero's petitions in this court and the California Supreme Court were pursued; the court addressed timeliness, retroactivity, and prejudice.
- Chun (2009) announced that shooting at an occupied vehicle could not serve as a predicate for felony murder, requiring retroactive application to cases like Lucero.
- The petition argued that retroactive Chun would render the felony-murder instruction erroneous and prejudicial under due process standards.
- The court concluded the petition was timely enough to consider, Chun applies retroactively, and the erroneous instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman/Sullivan and Roy analyses.
- Nonetheless, the court denied the habeas petition based on lack of prejudice under the applicable standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the habeas petition | Lucero argues delay was reasonable given Chun's later development | People contend delay was unreasonable | Delay not unreasonable; petition considered on its merits |
| Retroactivity of Chun | Chun should apply retroactively to Lucero's final judgment | Retroactivity should be limited | Chun retroactively applicable to Lucero’s case |
| Prejudice from erroneous felony-murder instruction | Instruction error prejudicial; imperfect self-defense could negate malice | Error harmless as in Chun | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman/Sullivan and Roy tests |
| Effect on murder verdict if properly instructed | Correct instruction could yield different malice findings | Evidence supports current verdict | No reasonable possibility the jury verdict rested on the erroneous felony-murder instruction |
| Impact of instructions on attempted murder verdicts | Attempted murder requires malice; felony-murder instruction not necessary | Instruction could mislead; dangerous | No prejudice; attempted murder findings show malice independent of felony-murder instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (overruled Hansen; confirmed error in felony-murder instruction for willful discharge of firearm but harmless)
- People v. Hansen, 9 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 1994) (felony murder predicate involving shooting at occupied vehicle disapproved by Chun)
- Tabios v. People, 67 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 1998) (affirmed murder/attempted murder convictions; acknowledged later overruled rule)
- People v. Guerra, 37 Cal.3d 385 (Cal. 1984) (new-rule retroactivity factors for habeas corpus)
- In re Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 (Cal. 1970) (test for retroactivity of new rules)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (harmless-error review under Chapman; applicability to federal standard)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Roy, 523 U.S. 2 (Cal. 1996) (reasoning on prejudice under Roy approach)