People v. Hampton CA4/2
E074416A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2022Background
- In November 1996 a liquor store proprietor was killed during an attempted robbery; two Black men were seen leaving the scene, one carrying a shotgun; numerous shotgun pellets caused fatal wounds.
- Hampton and codefendant Marlon Bayliss left a residence together the night of the crime; witnesses later placed Hampton’s black Thunderbird near the scene; tire casts matched Hampton’s car.
- At trial juries were instructed on three theories: direct perpetrator, felony murder, and natural-and-probable-consequences. Hampton’s jury convicted him of first-degree murder and found he personally used a firearm (a finding that generically allowed shotgun, pistol, or revolver and included brandishing as well as firing).
- Hampton filed a petition under Penal Code § 1170.95 (post–SB 1437) seeking resentencing. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, concluding the record showed Hampton was the actual killer; the Court of Appeal initially affirmed.
- The California Supreme Court transferred the case back for reconsideration in light of People v. Lewis and SB 775. On reconsideration the Court of Appeal reversed the denial and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing because the question whether Hampton was the actual killer required factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Hampton’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly engaged in judicial factfinding at the §1170.95 prima facie stage by concluding Hampton was the actual killer | The record of conviction (including a jury finding Hampton personally used a shotgun and the appellate opinion) conclusively shows Hampton was the actual killer, so petition properly denied | The record does not conclusively establish Hampton was the actual killer; any such conclusion required weighing evidence and resolving credibility | Reversed: prima facie denial was improper because determining actual killer would require factfinding; court must issue OSC and hold evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the jury’s “personal use of a firearm” finding establishes as a matter of law that Hampton fired the murder shotgun | The firearm-use finding shows Hampton personally used the murder weapon | The firearm-use finding was ambiguous (could be brandishing or a different gun) and thus does not conclusively prove he fired the murder shotgun | Held for Hampton: the jury finding was not dispositive because it allowed for other firearms and for non-shooting conduct (e.g., brandishing) |
| Effect of Lewis and SB 775 on prima facie standard and post-conviction process under §1170.95 | Trial courts may consider the record of conviction but should deny only when ineligibility is established as a matter of law | Lewis and SB 775 support the requirement that courts not resolve disputed facts at the prima facie stage; factual disputes require a hearing | Held: Lewis and SB 775 require courts to avoid weighing evidence at prima facie; remand for OSC and evidentiary hearing consistent with those authorities |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (trial courts must not engage in factfinding, weighing, or credibility determinations at the §1170.95 prima facie stage)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (describing SB 1437 reforms and purpose of §1170.95 relief)
- People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (prior appellate opinions can establish ineligibility in narrow circumstances)
- People v. Harden, 76 Cal.App.5th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (prima facie denial permissible when the record conclusively refutes the petition)
- People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (courts should defer credibility and evidentiary disputes to an evidentiary hearing)