People v. Eynon
68 Cal.App.5th 967
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- In 2013 Steven Ray Eynon pled guilty to first‑degree murder and was sentenced to 25 years to life; the information also alleged the murder occurred during a robbery and included a robbery‑murder special circumstance.
- A codefendant was alleged to be the actual shooter; the prosecution requested dismissal of enhancements as part of the plea agreement.
- At the plea hearing Eynon admitted he "did what Count 1 of the Information says" and agreed the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery; he did not expressly admit he personally acted with premeditation, deliberation, or intent to kill, nor did he admit the truth of the special‑circumstance allegation.
- After Senate Bill No. 1437, Eynon filed a section 1170.95 petition asserting he was not the actual killer, did not act with intent to kill, and was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
- The trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause, relying on the fact Eynon had been held to answer on the special‑circumstance allegation.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the plea and being held to answer did not refute Eynon’s eligibility for relief and remanding with directions to issue an order to show cause under §1170.95.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record of conviction (plea) refutes eligibility under §1170.95 | Eynon admitted he acted with premeditated, deliberate intent to kill, so he is ineligible | The plea was generic and did not admit that Eynon personally acted with malice, premeditation, or intent to kill | The plea did not refute eligibility; admission was to the charged murder generally, not to personal malice or intent; remand to issue OSC |
| Whether being held to answer on a special‑circumstance allegation establishes facts to deny relief | Being held to answer shows a finding supporting major‑participant/reckless‑indifference theory | Being held to answer is not a factual finding of truth and does not refute the petition | Being held to answer does not constitute a factual finding and cannot alone refute eligibility at prima facie stage |
| Proper scope of prima facie review under §1170.95 | Court may deny at prima facie stage if record contains facts refuting petition | Court must accept petition allegations as true and avoid factfinding or weighing evidence | Court may consider the record but must not engage in factfinding or adverse credibility determinations; deny only if record incontrovertibly refutes allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 62 Cal.App.5th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (generic guilty plea does not necessarily admit that defendant acted with actual malice)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (describes §1170.95 prima facie review limits and use of the record of conviction)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (aider‑and‑abettor cannot be convicted of first‑degree premeditated murder under natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (explains elimination of natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine for murder after SB 1437)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (describes §1170.95 petition procedure and standards)
- People v. Bryant, 56 Cal.4th 959 (Cal. 2013) (explains felony‑murder rule allowed murder liability without proof of malice before SB 1437)