People v. Clayton
B308524
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 2, 2021Background
- In 1999 Clayton entered a Long Beach store with three others; he grabbed the clerk and escorted her to the back while another assailant beat and then fatally shot Gary Kim. Clayton was unarmed.
- A jury convicted Clayton of first-degree murder and two robberies; it found firearm enhancements true but found the felony-murder special-circumstance (murder during robbery) not true as to Clayton.
- Clayton was sentenced to 25 years-to-life plus additional terms; his conviction was later challenged under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill No. 1437) seeking vacatur/resentencing.
- At the prima facie stage the superior court appointed counsel and took briefing but instead of issuing an order to show cause it conducted its own Banks/Clark factfinding, concluded Clayton was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference, and summarily denied the § 1170.95 petition.
- The Court of Appeal held the superior court erred by making factual findings at the prima facie stage and, because the jury had unanimously found the special circumstance not true, concluded § 1170.95(d)(2) required vacatur of the felony-murder conviction and remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court could resolve facts at the §1170.95 prima facie stage | People conceded the summary denial was error but sought remand for a hearing | Clayton argued the court erred by conducting factual weighing and should follow §1170.95 procedures | Court: trial court erred; prima facie review cannot involve judicial factfinding and an order to show cause / §1170.95(d) procedures are required |
| Whether a jury’s unanimous “not true” verdict on a felony-murder special circumstance constitutes a prior finding that petitioner did not act with reckless indifference or was not a major participant under §1170.95(d)(2) | AG argued the case should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing so People could attempt to prove ineligibility | Clayton argued the jury’s not-true finding establishes entitlement to relief as a matter of law | Court: the jury’s unanimous rejection is a prior finding under §1170.95(d)(2); it mandates vacatur and resentencing without a new hearing |
| Proper remedy when a prior jury finding negates major-participant/reckless-indifference | Remand for evidentiary hearing to let the People try again | Immediate vacatur and resentencing based on prior jury finding | Court: vacatur and resentencing are required; remand for facts would defeat §1170.95(d)(2) and cause unnecessary delay |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (explains SB 1437 amendments to malice and felony-murder)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (framework for major participant/reckless indifference analysis)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (factors for assessing culpability in group felony killings)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (discusses §1170.95 prima facie review and limits on judicial factfinding)
- People v. Ramirez, 41 Cal.App.5th 923 (construed §1170.95(d)(2) to require vacatur when a prior court finding negated major participant/reckless indifference)
- People v. Santamaria, 8 Cal.4th 903 (jury verdicts can reflect uncertainty about roles; a not-true finding does not always prove affirmative factual innocence)