People v. Jennings CA6
H049043
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 17, 2022Background:
- In 1991 the manager of a craft store was bound, robbed, stabbed over 20 times, and killed; about $9,000 was taken from the safe.
- Jennings was tried for first‑degree murder with special‑circumstance allegations (lying in wait, burglary, robbery); jury found him guilty and true robbery and burglary special circumstances; he was sentenced to life without parole plus consecutive terms for separate guilty pleas.
- Trial evidence suggested Jennings was the leader of the group planning the robbery but also suggested he may have been outside during the killing (co‑defendant statements, lack of blood on Jennings’s clothing).
- After Banks and Clark (which redefined the major‑participant/reckless‑indifference standard), Jennings petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95; the trial court denied relief, reasoning an undisturbed pre‑Banks/Clark felony‑murder special circumstance bars § 1170.95 relief.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, following People v. Pineda, and remanded for a § 1170.95(c) prima facie review applying the Banks/Clark standards; if insufficient, an order to show cause and evidentiary hearing must follow.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pre‑Banks/Clark felony‑murder special‑circumstance finding categorically bars § 1170.95 relief | The People argued an undisturbed special‑circumstance finding makes a petitioner ineligible for § 1170.95 relief unless the finding is first vacated via habeas | Jennings argued he should not be categorically ineligible and the trial court should assess prima facie Banks/Clark sufficiency under § 1170.95(c) | Court held Jennings is not categorically barred; remanded for a Banks/Clark sufficiency review at the § 1170.95(c) prima facie stage |
| Whether the trial court must require habeas relief before § 1170.95 or may perform a Banks/Clark review at prima facie stage | People urged appellate resolution of Banks/Clark issue but contended habeas prerequisite applies | Jennings and appellate majority urged that requiring habeas is unnecessary and inefficient; trial court should perform a limited sufficiency inquiry | Court adopted Pineda approach: no habeas prerequisite; remand for limited sufficiency review and, if insufficient, order to show cause and evidentiary hearing under § 1170.95(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (defines “major participant” inquiry for felony‑murder special circumstances)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (identifies five case‑specific factors for reckless indifference analysis)
- In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (Cal. 2020) (habeas pathway to challenge pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings when no material factual dispute)
- People v. Secrease, 63 Cal.App.5th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (supports conducting Banks/Clark sufficiency review at § 1170.95 prima facie stage)
- People v. Pineda, 66 Cal.App.5th 792 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (adopts middle approach: limited Banks/Clark review at § 1170.95(c) and remand if insufficient)