People v. Dixon CA3
C092798
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 13, 2021Background
- In 2009 Dixon participated in a group robbery/shooting that resulted in the death of Perrell Waters; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder with a robbery‑murder special circumstance and related enhancements.
- On direct appeal (People v. Scott) convictions were affirmed; the case was remanded for resentencing and Dixon ultimately received a 50‑to‑life aggregate sentence.
- After Senate Bill No. 1437 and enactment of Penal Code § 1170.95, Dixon petitioned for resentencing, alleging he was not the actual killer, lacked intent to kill, and was not a major participant acting with reckless indifference.
- The People moved to dismiss; the trial court denied the § 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage, reasoning the pre‑Banks/Clark robbery‑murder special circumstance true finding conclusively precluded eligibility.
- Dixon appealed; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding a pre‑Banks/Clark special circumstance finding bars § 1170.95 relief as a matter of law and that habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle to challenge such a finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pre‑Banks/Clark felony‑murder special‑circumstance finding precludes § 1170.95 relief | The special‑circumstance true finding establishes as a matter of law that the defendant remains culpable under the amended felony‑murder standards and thus is ineligible | Banks and Clark clarified the standards for "major participant" and "reckless indifference," so a pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance finding does not conclusively establish ineligibility and requires further litigation under § 1170.95 | The court held the pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance finding precludes § 1170.95 relief; a habeas petition is the proper avenue to challenge the special circumstance |
| Whether the trial court may consider the record of conviction at the prima facie stage | The court may consider the record of conviction when assessing a prima facie showing | Dixon argued the court should not rely on the record to foreclose relief at the prima facie stage | The court treated consideration of the record as proper (consistent with People v. Lewis) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (clarified "major participant" analysis for felony‑murder special circumstance)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (clarified "reckless indifference to human life" standard)
- People v. Galvan, 52 Cal.App.5th 1134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (held pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings preclude § 1170.95 relief)
- People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (same; Banks/Clark construed existing law rather than changed it)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (approved consideration of the record of conviction in the § 1170.95 prima facie review)
- In re Miller, 14 Cal.App.5th 960 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (recognizes habeas as appropriate vehicle to attack special‑circumstance sufficiency)