People v. Clements
75 Cal.App.5th 276
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2022Background:
- In 1989 Clements solicited her ex-husband (Earl) and her boyfriend (Michael) to confront her 16‑year‑old brother; Earl and Michael killed the brother. Clements was convicted of second‑degree murder in 1990 after jury instructions included both implied‑malice and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theories.
- SB 1437 (2018) abolished the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine for murder and added Penal Code §1170.95, creating a procedure to vacate convictions that cannot be sustained under the amended murder definition.
- Clements filed a §1170.95 petition; the parties agreed to limit the evidentiary hearing to the cold record (trial transcripts and prior appellate opinion). The trial judge denied the petition on two alternative grounds: (1) the record contained substantial evidence supporting an implied‑malice theory as a legal matter; and (2) sitting as factfinder, he found Clements guilty of implied‑malice second‑degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
- On appeal the court: (a) held prior appellate opinions are part of the record of conviction and may be considered (but noted later statutory limits on reliance); (b) rejected use of a mere substantial‑evidence legal sufficiency test at the §1170.95(d)(3) hearing and concluded the trial judge must act as factfinder applying the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard; and (c) affirmed because substantial evidence supports the trial judge’s factual finding of implied malice.
- The opinion distinguishes People v. Vivar (independent review for §1473.7 claims) and follows People v. Perez (deference to trial court factual findings), and acknowledges later statutory amendments (SB 775 and 2021 amendments) clarifying evidence-use and that substantial evidence alone is insufficient to show ineligibility.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Clements) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the trial court consider the prior appellate opinion as part of the record of conviction? | Appellate opinion is part of the record and admissible in post‑conviction hearings. | Trial court erred in relying on the prior opinion’s factual summaries. | Yes — appellate opinions are part of the record and may be considered, but the trial court here relied on the trial transcripts; Legislature later limited use of appellate factual summaries. |
| What is the trial court’s role/standard at a §1170.95(d)(3) hearing — substantial‑evidence legal sufficiency review or factfinder applying beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt? | The People argued the court may decide whether the petitioner "could be" convicted (akin to substantial‑evidence review). | Clements argued the judge must independently determine factual guilt under current law (no deference). | The judge must act as a factfinder and decide whether the People proved ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt; substantial‑evidence review alone is insufficient. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of implied malice to deny resentencing? | The record (including Clements’ own testimony) shows she solicited the assault, knew Earl’s violent/ deadly propensity, heard threats, and nonetheless facilitated the assault — supporting implied malice. | Clements contends reasonable doubt exists as to whether she acted with conscious disregard for life. | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports the trial judge’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Clements acted with implied malice. |
| Should the appellate court independently review trial‑court factual findings because the judge did not preside at the original trial? | Deference to trial‑court factual findings is appropriate even when based on the cold record. | Clements urged independent review because the judge did not observe live testimony. | Deference applies (Perez governs); Vivar (independent review) was distinguished as dealing with predominantly legal issues under §1473.7. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 1055 (Cal. 2018) (trial‑court factual findings based solely on the record of conviction are entitled to deference)
- People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (Cal. 2021) (independent appellate review applied in §1473.7 proceedings because issues were predominantly legal)
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (Cal. 1998) (appellate opinions are generally part of the record of conviction admissible in posttrial proceedings)
- People v. Rodriguez, 58 Cal.App.5th 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (advocating that substantial‑evidence review is improper at §1170.95(d)(3) hearings)
- People v. Langi, 73 Cal.App.5th 972 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (example when prior instructions allowed imputation of malice based solely on participation and remand for §1170.95 review was required)
- People v. Knoller, 41 Cal.4th 139 (Cal. 2007) (defining implied malice: an act the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life performed with knowledge of and conscious disregard for that danger)