People v. Britt CA2/7
B297588A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2021Background
- Defendant Deshon Britt, a gang member, confronted victim Aaron Patterson; after a fight, co-defendant Milton Jones shot Patterson in the head and killed him.
- Britt was convicted of first-degree murder with firearm and gang findings and sentenced to 50 years to life; this conviction was previously affirmed on appeal.
- Britt filed a section 1170.95 petition (post–Senate Bill 1437) claiming he could not now be convicted of murder under the amended law, checked that he was not the actual killer and did not act with intent to kill or as a major participant with reckless indifference, and requested counsel.
- The superior court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel, finding from the record that Britt was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference; Britt appealed.
- The Court of Appeal, after reconsideration ordered by the California Supreme Court in light of People v. Lewis, affirmed denial: the record of conviction showed the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and CALCRIM No. 401 required proof of the aider/abettor’s own mental state, so Britt was ineligible for §1170.95 relief as a matter of law.
- The court acknowledged the superior court erred by not appointing counsel but held the error was harmless because the record conclusively refuted Britt’s eligibility and no order to show cause was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by denying the §1170.95 petition without appointing counsel or issuing an order to show cause | Error was harmless; record of conviction conclusively shows ineligibility so denial without counsel/OSC proper | Denial without appointed counsel or OSC violated §1170.95 and Lewis | Court erred in not appointing counsel but the error was harmless; no OSC required because record conclusively establishes ineligibility |
| Whether Britt could be convicted under an imputed-malice theory (making him eligible for §1170.95 relief) given CALCRIM No. 400/401 instructions | Record shows CALCRIM No. 401 required proof of aider/abettor’s own knowledge and intent, so conviction did not rest on imputed malice; Britt is ineligible | CALCRIM No. 400’s “equally guilty” language could have misled jurors into imputing shooter’s malice to Britt, making him eligible | CALCRIM No. 401 cured any ambiguity from former CALCRIM No. 400; jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural-and-probable-consequences, so Britt is ineligible as a matter of law |
| Whether trial-court review of the record at the prima facie stage was proper | Trial court may examine the record to dismiss petitions that are clearly meritless based on readily ascertainable facts | Britt initially argued the court improperly relied on the record and stepped outside the petition’s four corners (later conceded) | Reviewing the record at the prima facie stage is permitted to the limited extent of identifying facts that conclusively refute eligibility; the court properly relied on the record here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (establishes §1170.95 prima facie and review standards post–SB 1437)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (legislative purpose of SB 1437 limiting murder liability for non‑killers and non‑major participants)
- People v. Johnson, 62 Cal.4th 600 (CALCRIM No. 401 requirement that aider/abettor possess the requisite mental state clarifies ambiguity in CALCRIM No. 400)
- People v. Mancilla, 67 Cal.App.5th 854 (trial court may dismiss petitions as meritless when record of conviction conclusively refutes eligibility)
- People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (petitioner ineligible for §1170.95 relief when jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences)
- People v. Wilson, 69 Cal.App.5th 665 (describes the three-stage §1170.95 process)