People v. Guillory
82 Cal.App.5th 326
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Guillory and an accomplice, Josh Burton, lured Calvin Curtis to Guillory’s apartment, bound and robbed him, then transported him in his car with Guillory and her baby; Curtis was repeatedly stabbed and beaten and ultimately strangled by Burton while Guillory participated in the assault.
- A jury convicted Guillory of first degree murder and related offenses; it returned a not-true finding on the special-circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during a kidnapping and deadlocked on robbery and carjacking special-circumstance allegations.
- Guillory petitioned for resentencing under former §1170.95 (now §1172.6). At an evidentiary hearing the court found Burton was the actual killer but also found Guillory aided and abetted with intent to kill and was a major participant acting with reckless indifference; the court denied relief.
- Guillory appealed, arguing the jury’s not-true finding on the kidnapping special circumstance automatically requires vacatur and resentencing under §1172.6(d)(2), and alternatively that the issuance of an order to show cause entitles her to retroactive application of Proposition 57.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it held the not-true finding did not mandate automatic relief because other viable bases for murder liability under current law remained, and Proposition 57 did not apply retroactively here.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Guillory’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury’s not-true finding on a kidnapping special circumstance compels automatic vacatur and resentencing under §1172.6(d)(2) | (Respondent) A not-true finding does not mandate vacatur if other valid theories of murder under current law remain; (d)(2) applies only where the prior finding forecloses all bases for current-law conviction | The not-true finding is a prior finding that she did not act with reckless indifference/was not a major participant and thus §1172.6(d)(2) requires automatic vacatur and resentencing | Rejected Guillory; relief is not automatic where other viable bases for murder (e.g., intent to kill aiding-and-abetting, or other felony-murder theories) persist |
| Whether an acquittal on a special-circumstance allegation constitutes a "prior finding" that the petitioner did not act with reckless indifference or was not a major participant | Court assumed arguendo that such an acquittal can be a "prior finding," but emphasized that even so it does not trigger automatic relief if other theories remain | An acquittal on the special circumstance is a qualifying "prior finding" under §1172.6(d)(2) | Court assumed it could be a prior finding but held Guillory ineligible because other valid theories remained |
| Whether issuance of an order to show cause under §1172.6 makes the original judgment nonfinal for retroactive application of Proposition 57 | An OSC does not vacate sentence; under People v. Padilla the judgment remains final until sentence is vacated on collateral attack, so Proposition 57 does not apply | An OSC triggers nonfinality under Lara and thus Prop 57 should apply retroactively, requiring a juvenile transfer hearing | Rejected Guillory; Padilla controls, OSC does not render the judgment nonfinal for Lara retroactivity |
| Whether mistried special-circumstance allegations are legal non-entities that cannot be relied on by the §1172.6 prosecutor | Mistried allegations remain part of the record and may be considered; there is no legal basis to treat them as non-entities | Mistried allegations are legal non-entities because the original prosecutor declined retrial, so they’re not part of the judgment | Rejected Guillory; mistried allegations are not legal non-entities for this purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (defines retroactivity of ameliorative changes like Proposition 57)
- People v. Padilla, 13 Cal.5th 152 (2022) (holding a judgment becomes nonfinal for Lara retroactivity when the sentence is vacated on collateral attack)
- People v. Flint, 75 Cal.App.5th 607 (2022) (discusses whether an acquittal on special circumstances is a "prior finding" under §1172.6(d)(2))
- People v. Clayton, 66 Cal.App.5th 145 (2021) (addresses effect of not-true special-circumstance findings and §1172.6 eligibility)
- People v. Ramirez, 41 Cal.App.5th 923 (2019) (held a prior habeas-based vacatur of a special circumstance constituted a prior finding requiring vacatur under §1172.6(d)(2))
- People v. Mancilla, 67 Cal.App.5th 854 (2021) (summarizes Senate Bill 1437’s narrowing of felony-murder liability)
- People v. Hatch, 22 Cal.4th 260 (2000) (acquittal or dismissal of one count does not bar consideration of other counts)