People v. Lauer CA2/5
B307421A
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 13, 2022Background
- In May 1981 Lauer and three codefendants participated in a crime spree that included the brutal stabbing of Ray Martin (murder) and the kidnapping, robbery, and attempted murder of Robert Kimberly; all four were convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
- On direct appeal and in subsequent habeas proceedings, the jury’s special circumstance (felony-murder) finding was challenged based on instructional error; the Court of Appeal in Lauer II held the instructional error harmless.
- Lauer filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (as amended by SB 775) in 2019; the trial court denied the petition after weighing the record and concluding Lauer was a direct aider and abettor and that the special-circumstance finding made him ineligible.
- The Court of Appeal initially affirmed in part and reversed in part, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back for reconsideration in light of SB 775, and the parties submitted supplemental briefing.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred at the prima facie stage by weighing evidence and treating the Lauer II harmless-error ruling and the preexisting special-circumstance finding as preclusive; it reversed and remanded for an order to show cause and a § 1170.95(d) hearing.
- The court also concluded that, under SB 775, Lauer is entitled to a remand for further proceedings on his attempted-murder conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by weighing evidence at the § 1170.95 prima facie stage? | People: court properly denied petition based on record showing Lauer was a direct aider/abettor. | Lauer: prima facie stage requires only a low bar; court should not resolve disputed facts or weigh evidence. | Court: trial court erred by engaging in factfinding/weighting before issuing an order to show cause; remand for hearing. |
| Does the prior appellate habeas opinion (Lauer II) preclude relief at the prima facie stage (law of the case/collateral estoppel)? | People: Lauer II’s harmless-error conclusion and record preclude relief; doctrines of preclusion apply. | Lauer: Lauer II is probative but not dispositive at prima facie; § 1170.95 allows new evidence and a low initial threshold. | Court: Lauer II is not preclusive at the prima facie stage; Lewis requires a low bar and permits additional evidence at the hearing. |
| Does the jury’s felony-murder special-circumstance finding automatically bar eligibility for § 1170.95 relief? | People: special-circumstance finding makes petitioner ineligible as a matter of law. | Lauer: special-circumstance finding does not prevent making a prima facie showing of eligibility under the amended statutes. | Court: special-circumstance finding does not bar making a prima facie showing; remand for an order to show cause and evidentiary hearing. |
| Is remand required for attempted-murder conviction under SB 775? | People: (conceded) SB 775 applies; remand appropriate. | Lauer: sought resentencing under SB 775 for attempted murder under natural-and-probable-consequences theory. | Court: agreed with parties; remand for further proceedings on attempted-murder count. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlos v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.3d 131 (issues on special-circumstance instructional error)
- Anderson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.3d 1104 (standards for harmless-error review of instructional errors)
- Olde v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.3d 386 (related harmless-error principles)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (beyond-a-reasonable-doubt harmless-error standard)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (§ 1170.95 procedure and low prima facie bar)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (major participant / reckless indifference framework)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (application of Banks factors)
- People v. Smith, 49 Cal.App.5th 85 (§ 1170.95 hearing may consider new evidence)
- People v. Jurado, 38 Cal.4th 72 (group participation and intent considerations)