People v. Evans CA2/2
B314863
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 28, 2022Background
- James Evans Jr. was convicted at a 2012 joint trial of first-degree murder and willful, deliberate, premeditated attempted murder; jury found firearm and gang enhancements; sentenced to 75 years to life; direct appeal affirmed.
- In July 2019 Evans petitioned under Penal Code former §1170.95 (now §1172.6), claiming his conviction rested on felony-murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine and that he was not the actual killer or a major participant with reckless indifference.
- Trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, and denied the petition on July 14, 2021, finding the record showed conviction as either the direct perpetrator or as an aider-and-abettor of premeditated murder or murder by discharge of a firearm from a vehicle (which requires intent to kill).
- The record on appeal showed the jury received CALCRIM Nos. 520, 521, and 548 (express/implied malice; first-degree murder by premeditation or by shooting from a vehicle), but did not receive felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences instructions.
- The verdict form found Evans guilty of murder and that the murder was first degree; the court concluded that, because the jury necessarily found express malice or intent to kill, Evans was ineligible for relief under §1172.6 as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Evans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans made a prima facie showing of eligibility under §1172.6 requiring an order to show cause and evidentiary hearing | The record of conviction contains jury instructions and a verdict showing the jury found express malice/intent to kill, so petition fails as a matter of law | Evans argues he was not the actual killer, lacked intent to kill, and was not shown to be a major participant with reckless indifference, so he met the prima facie standard | Court held Evans failed to make a prima facie showing; denied petition because record conclusively shows conviction rested on express malice/intent theories |
| Whether the absence of felony-murder or NPC instructions matters | People: absence of those instructions and presence of premeditation/shooting-from-vehicle instructions forecloses §1172.6 relief | Evans: substantive record did not establish he was the shooter or shared intent, so relief should proceed | Court held the instructions given (CALCRIM 520, 521, 548) show the jury found intent to kill; absence of felony-murder/NPC instructions makes him ineligible as a matter of law |
| Whether sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims may be relitigated at prima facie stage | People: §1172.6 proceeding is not a vehicle to relitigate sufficiency at the prima facie stage | Evans contends trial evidence was insufficient to prove he had intent or was actual killer | Court held sufficiency challenges are improper at prima facie review; the inquiry is whether the record conclusively refutes §1172.6 eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (SB 1437 bars convictions under natural and probable consequences theory)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (procedure and purpose of §1172.6 remedial relief explained)
- People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (2020) (if record shows no felony murder or NPC instructions, petitioner ineligible as matter of law)
- People v. Farfan, 71 Cal.App.5th 942 (2021) (prima facie burden is to show inability to be convicted under amended §§188/189)
- People v. Coley, 77 Cal.App.5th 539 (2022) (direct aiding-and-abetting of attempted murder remains a valid theory post-SB 1437)
- People v. Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (1999) (appellate court may affirm correct ruling despite erroneous reasoning)