People v. Lee CA2/3
B311397
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 11, 2021Background:
- In 1984 Lee set fire to a house; a baby died from thermal injuries. Lee later admitted to cellmates he started the fire to kill a woman who owed him money.
- In 1986 Lee pleaded guilty to attempted arson and use of a destructive device; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder and arson; he received 25 years to life for murder.
- Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) added Penal Code §1170.95, narrowing felony‑murder/accomplice liability and providing a resentencing petition procedure.
- Lee filed a §1170.95 petition in April 2020; counsel was appointed and the People responded that the record showed Lee was the actual killer and the jury was not instructed on aiding/abetting or the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine.
- The trial court, after considering the record and the People’s response, denied the petition as Lee was the actual killer; Lee appealed, counsel filed a Wende brief and Lee submitted a supplemental letter brief.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed Lee’s supplemental arguments, declined to reweigh trial evidence or credibility, and affirmed the denial of §1170.95 relief.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Lee’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel must be appointed and parties allowed briefing before the court may consider the record under §1170.95 | Court should follow the Lewis rule requiring appointment and briefing; here counsel was appointed and the People filed a response | Lee sought review but did not contest the appointment procedure on appeal | Court followed Lewis framework; appointment occurred and the record was considered after briefing |
| Whether the record shows Lee is eligible for §1170.95 relief (i.e., not the actual killer or convicted as an aider/abettor) | Record and jury instructions indicate Lee was the actual perpetrator; jurors were instructed on malice, premeditation, and felony murder, not aiding/abetting or natural‑and‑probable‑consequences | Lee points to trial testimony, an alibi, altered transcripts, and destroyed evidence suggesting he was not the actual killer | Court found the record established Lee was the only person who committed the crimes and his cellmate admissions supported that; thus he is ineligible for §1170.95 relief; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
| Whether the Wende procedure suffices for appeals from orders denying postconviction relief and what review is required when the defendant files a supplemental brief | The People relied on existing precedents; the Court noted conflicting authority but proceeded to consider the supplemental brief | Lee filed a supplemental brief raising substantive claims that required evaluation | Because Lee filed a supplemental brief, the Court considered his arguments on the merits and found no reversible error; counsel complied with obligations |
| Whether ancillary claims about altered transcripts or destroyed evidence affect the §1170.95 denial | Such claims do not undermine the record‑based finding that Lee was the actual killer | Lee raised these claims on appeal seeking to undermine the conviction record | Court held those matters were not properly before it for overturning the §1170.95 denial and in any event do not alter the ineligibility finding |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (standards for appointed counsel’s brief in criminal appeals)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (overview of SB 1437 purpose narrowing felony‑murder and accomplice liability)
- People v. Brown, 59 Cal.4th 86 (2014) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (counsel’s duties in appellate representation)
- People v. Serrano, 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (2012) (discussion of Wende review applicability to postconviction appeals)
- People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (2020) (addresses procedural handling of appeals from postconviction orders)