People v. Johnson CA4/2
E075238
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Victim Virginia Brackney was beaten to death; autopsy showed multiple blunt-force blows inflicted with substantial force. Tire irons recovered were capable of causing the injuries. Victim’s empty purse was later found in a 7‑Eleven dumpster.
- Jessie (Jesse) Johnson Jr. pled guilty in 1986 to second‑degree murder (§ 187) and robbery (§ 211) and was sentenced to 15 years to life (plus concurrent 5 years on robbery).
- In January 2019 Johnson petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437), arguing changes to §§ 188 and 189 could now preclude a murder conviction based on felony‑murder or natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theories.
- The trial court found a prima facie case, issued an order to show cause, and held an evidentiary hearing where codefendant Willie Harris testified both he and Johnson struck the victim with tire irons, helped conceal the body, cleaned the scene, disposed of the purse, and agreed not to implicate one another.
- The court credited Harris’s hearing testimony (despite prior inconsistent statements), and relied on circumstantial proof—Johnson’s presence, failure to render aid, participation in concealment and cleanup, and lies to the victim’s daughter—to find Johnson was ineligible for § 1170.95 relief as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying substantial‑evidence review and holding the record supports the trial court’s credibility determinations and the denial of the petition.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Johnson’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson is ineligible for § 1170.95 resentencing because he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference (or the actual killer) | Evidence (Harris’s testimony, autopsy, tire irons, concealment, lies, cleanup) shows Johnson participated in the beating, concealed the body, and acted with reckless indifference | Harris is a liar with inconsistent statements; his testimony is not credible so evidence is insufficient to support ineligibility | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of ineligibility; appellate court will not reweigh credibility and may rely on the trier‑of‑fact’s determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (factors for determining whether an accomplice was a major participant in a felony that resulted in a death)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (factors for whether an aider/abettor acted with reckless indifference to human life)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (overview of Senate Bill 1437 amendments and § 1170.95 procedure)
- People v. Morales, 10 Cal.5th 76 (2020) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; appellate review in the light most favorable to the judgment)
- People v. Lopez, 56 Cal.App.5th 936 (2020) (appellate standard for § 1170.95 evidentiary‑hearing factual findings)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (appellate courts do not reweigh credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts)
- People v. Ghobrial, 5 Cal.5th 250 (2018) (a single witness’s testimony can suffice unless physically impossible or inherently improbable)
- People v. Whisenhunt, 44 Cal.4th 174 (2008) (presumption in support of the judgment of facts a trier of fact could reasonably infer)