People v. Burns CA2/2
B308077
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2021Background
- Appellant Donvay LaMarr Burns was charged with murder and other offenses; he pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm and admitted gang and gun enhancements.
- He was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of 25 years plus a concurrent 3-year term.
- After SB 1437’s resentencing mechanism (Pen. Code, § 1170.95) took effect, Burns filed a section 1170.95 petition arguing he was eligible because he originally faced murder liability under the natural-and-probable-consequences theory but pled to manslaughter.
- Burns also argued section 1170.95 is ambiguous and that excluding manslaughter plea defendants violates equal protection and substantive due process.
- The trial court denied the petition relying on People v. Cervantes; Burns appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.95 applies to defendants who pleaded to voluntary manslaughter after facing murder liability | § 1170.95 ambiguous; should cover all homicides including manslaughter pleas | Statute’s plain text limits relief to murder convictions (felony murder or murder under natural-and-probable-consequences) | Court: § 1170.95 unambiguously applies only to murder convictions; manslaughter pleas are ineligible |
| Whether excluding voluntary manslaughter plea defendants violates equal protection | Exclusion treats similarly situated defendants differently without justification | Legislature had a rational basis: reform targeted murder liability under theories alleged to be excessive | Court: Rational-basis review satisfied; no equal protection violation |
| Whether § 1170.95 violates substantive due process | Exclusion is arbitrary and irrational | SB 1437’s objectives (narrowing murder liability and providing a resentencing procedure) are rationally related to § 1170.95 | Court: No substantive due process violation; statute rationally advances legislative goals |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cervantes, 44 Cal.App.5th 884 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (§ 1170.95 applies only to murder convictions)
- People v. Flores, 44 Cal.App.5th 985 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (§ 1170.95 covers murder, not voluntary manslaughter)
- People v. Turner, 45 Cal.App.5th 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (legislative history confirms exclusion of manslaughter pleas)
- People v. Sanchez, 48 Cal.App.5th 914 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (rejecting § 1170.95 relief for manslaughter plea defendants)
- People v. Paige, 51 Cal.App.5th 194 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (upholding exclusion of voluntary manslaughter plea defendants from § 1170.95)
- People v. Harris, 60 Cal.App.5th 557 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (line-drawing in § 1170.95 withstands equal protection review)
- People v. Hillhouse, 109 Cal.App.4th 1612 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (statutory plain-meaning rule; avoid rewriting statute absent absurdity)