People v. Gutierrez-Salazar
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Defendant Dionicio Gutierrez-Salazar was tried jointly for two separate murders (2013 count 2; 2015 count 1) and convicted by a jury of first degree murder for both counts; count 2 carried a felony-murder special-circumstance finding (robbery) under Penal Code §190(a)(17).
- Fact evidence at trial included eyewitness Teresa Jimenez, a cooperating witness Rogacino Munoz who implicated defendant in the 2013 killing, and a statement by defendant to Officer Sanchez admitting he was present and took part in the 2013 killing; DNA from the scene identified a different suspect but defendant’s statements and Munoz’s testimony were central.
- The jury was instructed on both pre-Senate Bill 1437 felony-murder instructions and the felony-murder special-circumstance instruction (CALCRIM No. 703) that required proof the aider was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference if not the actual killer.
- While this appeal was pending, Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended felony-murder law and added Penal Code §1170.95, providing a procedure for certain defendants to seek retroactive relief in the sentencing court.
- The parties briefed whether Senate Bill 1437 affects defendant’s 2013 conviction; the court found defendant cannot obtain relief under the amended law on this record because the jury already found the special-circumstance elements that mirror the new law.
- The court affirmed the judgment and denied relief on appeal, noting the defendant remains free to file a §1170.95 petition in the trial court but need not be granted relief here because he cannot benefit from the amendment.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Gutierrez-Salazar’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Senate Bill 1437’s amendments apply to defendant on direct appeal | SB 1437 provides retroactive relief only via petition in the sentencing court (§1170.95); not available on direct appeal | SB 1437 is ameliorative and, under In re Estrada, applies retroactively on direct appeal because defendant’s judgment was not final when the law changed | Court did not decide the procedural-only question because defendant cannot benefit substantively: jury found felony-murder special circumstance matching SB 1437’s standards, so no relief warranted on appeal |
| Whether defendant is entitled to relief because of changes to felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences doctrines | Relief must be sought under §1170.95 and procedures in sentencing court; but substantively, People argued the record supports the special-circumstance finding | Defendant argued the new law mitigates liability and requires reversal or remand on count 2 | Held: No substantive benefit; special-circumstance finding (major participant + reckless indifference or intent to kill) was true, so any instructional or retroactivity error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (States ameliorative statutes apply retroactively unless Legislature indicates otherwise)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (Legislative intent to make amendment prospective must be clear)
- People v. Martinez, 31 Cal.App.5th 719 (SB 1437 retroactivity channeled to §1170.95 petition procedure)
- People v. Anthony, 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 (same: direct appeal not proper route; §1170.95 is exclusive mechanism)
- In re Taylor, 34 Cal.App.5th 543 (interpretation of SB 1437’s impact on felony-murder language)
- People v. Carter, 34 Cal.App.5th 831 (SB 1437 remedies pursued in sentencing court under §1170.95)
- People v. Frazier, 128 Cal.App.4th 807 (no remand where amended law would not change defendant’s eligibility or outcome)
- People v. Cawkwell, 34 Cal.App.5th 1048 (remand not appropriate when record shows ineligibility under amended law)
- People v. Coelho, 89 Cal.App.4th 861 (courts decline remand when it would be an idle act)
- People v. Stanley, 10 Cal.4th 764 (law-of-the-case doctrine may limit later relief)