G059817
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 21, 2021Background:
- In 2013 Carachure was identified as one of several men who chased and stabbed Fidel Guarjardo; the victim died of 16 stab wounds; Carachure was seen with a knife and blood on his person.
- Prosecutor charged first degree murder and alleged a gang special circumstance under Penal Code §190.2(a)(22) (murder committed by active gang member to further gang), plus gang enhancement and prison priors.
- Jury convicted Carachure of first degree murder, found the gang special circumstance true, found the gang enhancement true, but did not find true the allegation that he personally used a knife; trial court imposed life without parole.
- Carachure sought relief under Penal Code §1170.95 (Senate Bill No. 1437) in 2019, arguing he was convicted under accomplice/felony-murder theories barred by SB 1437; prosecution initially challenged SB 1437’s constitutionality but later conceded it was binding precedent and argued the special circumstance required intent to kill.
- Trial court denied the §1170.95 petition because the gang special circumstance required a finding that Carachure intentionally killed the victim, making him ineligible; the denial was appealed, counsel filed a Wende brief, Carachure filed a supplemental brief, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carachure is eligible for relief under Penal Code §1170.95 given the gang special circumstance | The gang special circumstance requires a finding that defendant intentionally killed the victim, so he is ineligible | He was convicted under accomplice/felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theories and thus eligible | Court held he is ineligible: special circumstance required intent to kill, so §1170.95 relief unavailable |
| Whether the jury relied on the natural and probable consequences doctrine to convict | Jury instructions and verdict show conviction rested on direct perpetrator or direct aider/abettor theory, not natural-and-probable-consequences | Jury must have relied on natural-and-probable-consequences, making SB 1437 applicable | Court held jury necessarily found premeditation/intent by defendant (or direct aiding with intent), not natural-and-probable-consequences |
| Whether the jury’s failure to find personal use of a knife indicates eligibility under SB 1437 | Personal-use finding unrelated to whether defendant intentionally killed; special circumstance controls | Absence of personal-use finding means he didn’t personally kill, so SB 1437 should apply | Court held absence of personal-use finding does not show conviction was under an accomplice liability theory barred by SB 1437; ineligibility stands |
| Whether the trial court needed to rule on SB 1437’s constitutionality | Prosecution had recognized controlling precedent upholding SB 1437; court need not relitigate constitutionality | Court failed to address constitutionality raised in prosecution’s filing | Court found constitutionality was settled by binding precedent and no separate ruling was required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (procedure when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on appeal)
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (Cal. 2006) (appellate duty to summarize defendant’s supplemental contentions when counsel files no-issue brief)
- In re White, 34 Cal.App.5th 933 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (discussing pre–SB 1437 felony-murder rules and effect of legislative changes)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (a person convicted as a direct aider/abettor is not eligible for §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (special circumstance finding can preclude §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Nunez, 57 Cal.App.5th 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (special circumstance findings may demonstrate intent or major participation, barring §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Flores, 54 Cal.App.5th 266 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (Wende review may be used on appeals from §1170.95 denials)