People v. Drayton
47 Cal.App.5th 965
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- In 1992 Drayton pleaded guilty to first‑degree murder after a nighttime home invasion during which co‑defendants killed Mr. Ward; Drayton admitted entering the residence to commit theft and possessing a .32 caliber pistol.
- He asserted a limited role: he did not shoot the victim, tried to stop a rape, hit but did not seriously injure Mrs. Ward, left with the others, and surrendered next day.
- Senate Bill 1437 (eff. Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed felony‑murder liability and created Penal Code §1170.95, permitting postconviction petitions where a conviction may no longer qualify as murder.
- Drayton filed a §1170.95 petition claiming he was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life; the People opposed, relying on Banks factors and the preliminary hearing record.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, finding Drayton was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference; the Court of Appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Drayton’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for the trial court’s §1170.95(c) prima facie review | Court may consider record evidence (prelim hearing) and deny if record shows ineligibility; weigh evidence and make credibility calls | Court must accept petition allegations as true for prima facie stage and not weigh evidence or assess credibility; issue order to show cause if allegations meet §1170.95(a) | Court: Treat §1170.95(c) prima facie review like habeas prima facie review — accept petition’s factual assertions as true unless conclusively refuted by the record; do not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations at this stage. |
| Application to Drayton — was summary denial proper? | Drayton’s preliminary hearing testimony and circumstances show he was a major participant and acted with reckless indifference under Banks, so petition should be denied | Drayton’s petition alleged facts (limited role, tried to stop rape, did not fire weapon, surrendered) that, if true, show he may not be a major participant or act with reckless indifference | Court: Trial court erred in summarily denying. Because Drayton’s allegations, taken as true, met §1170.95(a) prima facie requirements, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold a §1170.95(d) hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (factors to assess whether defendant was a “major participant” in felony murder)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (2020) (discussing §1170.95(c) prima facie review and analogy to habeas procedures)
- People v. Duvall, 9 Cal.4th 464 (1995) (court takes habeas petitioner’s factual allegations as true at prima facie stage)
- People v. Romero, 8 Cal.4th 728 (1994) (order to show cause required if petitioner makes prima facie showing)
- In re Serrano, 10 Cal.4th 447 (1995) (courts should not reject petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without an evidentiary hearing except where record conclusively refutes them)
- People v. Flores, 44 Cal.App.5th 985 (2020) (recognizing §189(e) and SB 1437 limits on felony‑murder liability)