64 Cal.App.5th 217
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 1966 Phillip Fortman and an accomplice brutally attacked an elderly man during an attempted robbery; the victim later died.
- A jury convicted Fortman of first‑degree murder and attempted second‑degree robbery; sentence: life for murder. (Affirmed in People v. Fortman.)
- SB 1437 (2018) narrowed murder liability by eliminating many vicarious‑liability theories (felony murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences) unless the defendant was the actual killer, acted with intent to kill, or was a major participant with reckless indifference.
- Section 1170.95 provides a retroactive procedure: (1) prima facie showing triggers an OSC; (2) at the §1170.95(d)(3) hearing the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the petitioner is ineligible for relief.
- Fortman filed a §1170.95 petition; the trial court denied relief based on the view that the record showed a jury could still convict on a viable theory (a "could" or substantial‑evidence style standard) rather than requiring the court to independently find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding the People must prove to the trial court, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty under a theory valid after SB 1437.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What must the People prove at a §1170.95(d)(3) hearing to show the petitioner is ineligible for relief? | The People argued the record shows Fortman could still be convicted (trial court may deny relief if a reasonable jury could convict on a still‑valid theory). | Fortman argued the People must persuade the trial court itself, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty under a theory that survives SB 1437. | The court held the People must prove, to the trial court as the factfinder, beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty under a theory valid after SB 1437; remanded for a new hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fortman, 257 Cal.App.2d 45 (historical conviction affirmed)
- People v. Lopez, 56 Cal.App.5th 936 (holds trial court must independently find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at §1170.95 hearing)
- People v. Rodriguez, 58 Cal.App.5th 227 (same)
- People v. Clements, 60 Cal.App.5th 597 (same)
- People v. Harris, 60 Cal.App.5th 939 (same)
- People v. Duke, 55 Cal.App.5th 113 (takes contrary view: People need only show a reasonable jury could convict)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (§1170.95 framework and purpose)
- People v. Frierson, 4 Cal.5th 225 (parallel construction principle for retroactive relief)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (explains felony‑murder liability)
- People v. Hardy, 5 Cal.5th 56 (explains natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (standard of proof function)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (beyond a reasonable doubt standard)