People v. Farfan
71 Cal.App.5th 942
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Edgar Farfan was convicted in 2016 of first‑degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery; the jury found the robbery‑murder special circumstance true and he was sentenced to life without parole.
- Facts: Farfan and accomplices forced a delivery truck to stop, removed the driver (victim), took most of the cigarette cargo, and the victim was later found dead by asphyxiation after being bound and injured.
- Farfan filed a section 1170.95 petition in 2019 (denied without counsel) and a second petition in 2020; the superior court again denied relief and he appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held the 2020 petition was not procedurally barred as a successive petition because it relied on new case law undermining the basis for the earlier denial.
- The court ruled the superior court erred by denying a facially sufficient petition without appointing counsel (People v. Lewis), but the error was harmless because the jury’s special‑circumstance finding establishes legal ineligibility for 1170.95 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Farfan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2020 §1170.95 petition was a successive petition barred from review | 2020 petition is successive and should be barred | New authority after 2019 petition removes the basis for denial; petition not barred | Not barred — new law justified second petition |
| Whether superior court must appoint counsel before considering facially sufficient petition | Court can consider record and deny if petition lacks merit | Lewis requires appointment of counsel upon filing of facially sufficient petition | Error to deny without counsel, but appointment is required when petition facially sufficient |
| Whether a felony‑murder special circumstance finding precludes §1170.95 relief as a matter of law | Special‑circumstance finding shows petitioner had intent to kill or was major participant with reckless indifference, making petitioner ineligible | Petitioner may still show ineligibility because jury might have relied on alternate theories; pre‑Banks/Clark splits exist | Held ineligible: the jury’s special‑circumstance finding establishes ineligibility as a matter of law in this case |
| Whether instructions invoking natural‑and‑probable‑consequences (uncharged conspiracy) require remand | Jury may have convicted on derivative liability; remand needed for evidentiary hearing | Special‑circumstance finding shows conviction rested on non‑derivative theory; remand unnecessary | No remand — special‑circumstance finding forecloses speculation about reliance on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (facially sufficient §1170.95 petition entitles petitioner to appointment of counsel and one prima facie review)
- People v. Simmons, 65 Cal.App.5th 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (felony‑murder special circumstance can preclude §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (factors for major participant/reckless indifference analysis)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (clarification of Banks factors and application)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (Senate Bill 1437’s purpose: sentence proportionality tied to individual culpability)
- People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (jury’s special‑circumstance finding forecloses §1170.95 eligibility)