80 Cal.App.5th 46
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2008 Ryan Armstrong was fatally stabbed during a fight involving Matthew Basler and two codefendants; no witness saw who inflicted the fatal stab wounds.
- In 2012 a jury convicted Basler of first degree murder, attempted murder, and related offenses; he admitted a serious-felony prior and received a lengthy indeterminate term.
- On direct appeal this court found Chiu instructional error (improper use of the natural-and-probable-consequences theory for first‑degree murder) and reversed the first‑degree murder conviction; the People later accepted reducing the murder conviction to second degree.
- Basler filed a section 1170.95 petition (Senate Bill No. 1437), and after briefing the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in May 2021 at which Basler was absent and his counsel submitted on the papers; the court denied the petition, finding Basler was convicted of premeditated first degree murder and was ineligible for relief.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded: (1) the trial court must hold a new section 1170.95 evidentiary hearing at which Basler is present or has knowingly waived presence; (2) the court may act as an independent factfinder and may accept new evidence at that hearing; and (3) the matter is remanded for the trial court to assess Basler’s attempted‑murder eligibility under SB 775.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court correctly found Basler was not convicted under felony‑murder or natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory (law‑of‑the‑case) | The People focused on whether Basler remains convictable under current law and did not dispute remand on attempted murder; they ultimately conceded the Chiu/law‑of‑the‑case point. | Basler argued the trial court contradicted this court’s prior opinion (law of the case) and thus erred in finding no Chiu error. | Court accepted the concession that the prior Chiu error finding governs; the trial court’s contrary finding was incorrect. |
| Whether the trial court must act as an independent factfinder at a section 1170.95(d) evidentiary hearing or only review what the jury found at trial | The People (and the statute) support an independent factfinding hearing where the prosecution must prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt and may offer new evidence. | Basler argued the court should only review whether the original jury made factual findings required under current law and not re‑weigh evidence (to avoid Sixth Amendment problems). | Court held the trial court properly acts as an independent factfinder, may consider new evidence, and the People bear the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt burden at the hearing. |
| Whether Basler had a constitutional right to be physically present at his section 1170.95(d) evidentiary hearing and whether his absence was harmless | The People argued any absence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because no new evidence was presented and counsel submitted on the papers. | Basler argued the hearing was a critical stage and he had a right to be present absent a knowing, intelligent waiver. | Court held Basler had a state and federal right to be present (or to knowingly waive presence); the record contains no valid waiver and the absence was not shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, so reversal and a new hearing are required. |
| Whether remand is required to consider attempted‑murder relief under SB 775 | The People conceded remand is appropriate to determine eligibility for attempted murder relief. | Basler sought remand to have the court determine attempted‑murder eligibility under the clarified statute. | Court accepted the concession and remanded for the trial court to determine whether Basler made a prima facie showing of eligibility as to attempted murder. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (California Supreme Court) (limits on using the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory to support first‑degree premeditated murder)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (California Supreme Court) (due‑process considerations for counsel after prima facie showing under postconviction statutes)
- People v. Simms, 23 Cal.App.5th 987 (Cal. Ct. App.) (defendant’s presence required at contested eligibility/resentencing proceedings where factual issues may be developed)
- People v. Rouse, 245 Cal.App.4th 292 (Cal. Ct. App.) (resentencing/eligibility proceedings are akin to plenary sentencing hearings and implicate critical‑stage protections)
- People v. Eynon, 68 Cal.App.5th 967 (Cal. Ct. App.) (overview of Senate Bill No. 1437 reforms to felony murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrines)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. Supreme Court) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)