70 Cal.App.5th 924
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 1999 Jenkins and Michael Conner tracked down Phillip Reeves; Conner chased, shot, strangled, and bludgeoned Reeves to death. Jenkins urged Conner to kill Reeves and assisted after the killing.
- Jenkins was tried with Conner; jury convicted Jenkins of second-degree murder and kidnapping, found a witness-killing special circumstance true as to Jenkins, and found firearm enhancements true.
- At sentencing the court struck the witness-killing special circumstance because Jenkins was convicted only of second-degree murder; the court imposed 15 years to life for murder plus additional terms and declined to stay the kidnapping sentence under § 654 (finding independent intents).
- Jenkins appealed and the conviction was affirmed; the appellate opinion sustained the trial court’s § 654-based finding that Jenkins harbored a separate intent supporting punishment on both offenses.
- In 2019 Jenkins petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.95 after Senate Bill 1437 eliminated second-degree murder liability under the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine; the trial court summarily denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the record of conviction did not refute Jenkins’s eligibility for § 1170.95 relief and directing the trial court to issue an order to show cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied Jenkins’s § 1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause | The record (including the 2004 opinion and § 654 finding) shows Jenkins directly aided the murder with intent to kill, so petition fails | Petition facially sufficient; record does not refute possibility jury convicted under natural-and-probable-consequences theory | Trial court erred; petition states prima facie case and court must issue an order to show cause |
| Whether the sentencing court’s § 654 implied finding of intent to kill precludes § 1170.95 relief | The § 654-based finding (upheld on appeal) shows Jenkins formed intent to kill and is ineligible | § 654 findings are made by preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt, so they cannot conclusively show ineligibility | § 654 implied finding does not preclude relief because it was made under preponderance standard |
| Whether the jury’s witness-killing special circumstance finding precludes relief | The special circumstance required intent to kill, so it would bar relief | The special circumstance was struck at sentencing and not part of the judgment, so it cannot preclude relief at prima facie review | Stricken special circumstance does not refute eligibility at the prima facie stage |
| Whether jury instructions and unanimity on the target offense show the jury necessarily found Jenkins directly aided murder | The instructions could be read to require a finding that Jenkins aided murder, defeating the claim that jury relied on N&P consequences | The natural-and-probable-consequences instruction was internally inconsistent; a later paragraph allowed nonunanimity as to the specific target offense, so jury might have convicted under N&P theory | Instructional ambiguity means the record does not establish the jury necessarily found direct aiding of murder; petition survives prima facie review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (explains N&P consequences doctrine and effect of Senate Bill 1437 on accomplice murder liability)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (interprets § 1170.95 procedures and prima facie review limits)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001) (direct aider-and-abettor must know and share murderous intent)
- People v. Carter, 34 Cal.App.5th 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (§ 654 intent determinations use preponderance standard)
- People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (special-circumstance findings requiring intent to kill can bar § 1170.95 relief)
- People v. Bentley, 55 Cal.App.5th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (special-circumstance findings and § 1170.95 eligibility)
- People v. Offley, 48 Cal.App.5th 588 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (direct aiding-and-abetting liability unchanged by SB 1437)
- People v. Barboza, 68 Cal.App.5th 955 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (stricken special circumstance does not preclude § 1170.95 relief at prima facie stage)
- People v. Aranda, 55 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 2012) (conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Zapien, 4 Cal.4th 929 (Cal. 1993) (correct ruling may be affirmed even if given for wrong reasons)