People v. Lee CA3
C091424
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 14, 2021Background
- Dec. 9, 1998: Victim (Jin Dao Lee), a JRB gang member, was standing on a porch when shots from a car’s backseat fatally wounded him; Kou Lee sat in the backseat with codefendant Tong, who had a .22 pistol later recovered with Tong’s fingerprints.
- Witnesses reported Lee told the driver to back up, told the passenger to roll down her window, yelled gang-related remarks at the victim, and that occupants laughed after the shooting.
- A jury convicted Lee of second degree murder (and other counts); instructions included both implied malice (malice aforethought) and the natural-and-probable-consequences aider-and-abettor theory.
- Lee appealed; convictions and some enhancements were reviewed and some enhancements reversed; Lee’s sentence became 15 years to life.
- In Jan. 2019 Lee petitioned under Penal Code §1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437 relief), alleging his murder conviction rested on felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theories barred by SB 1437.
- Trial court denied the §1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage (subd. (c)) without issuing an order to show cause, concluding as a matter of law the jury would have convicted on implied malice; the Court of Appeal reversed and directed issuance of an order to show cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied the §1170.95 petition at the subdivision (c) prima facie stage by concluding the record showed Lee was ineligible as a matter of law (i.e., jury would have convicted on implied malice even without natural-and-probable-consequences theory). | The People (and trial court) argued the record shows Lee acted with implied malice (pointing/ordering the stop, rolling down window, laughing after shooting), so he was ineligible for resentencing. | Lee argued the record does not establish ineligibility as a matter of law and the court improperly weighed evidence at the (c) stage instead of issuing an order to show cause and allowing the (d) process. | Reversed: court erred to deny at (c). Record did not conclusively show ineligibility; trial court must issue an order to show cause and proceed under §1170.95(d). |
| Proper scope of the §1170.95, subdivision (c) review — may the trial court consider the record of conviction, and if so, how far may it go? | People/Some authority: court may consult readily available portions of the record (complaint, verdict forms, appellate opinions, jury instructions) when assessing a prima facie showing. | Lee argued the (c) review should not permit weighing evidence or resolving factual contests; such determinations belong at an evidentiary hearing under (d). | Held: Trial courts may consider the record of conviction at (c) but must not engage in factual weighing or resolve competing inferences; if the record does not establish ineligibility as a matter of law, the court should issue an order to show cause and proceed to (d). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (explains aider-and-abettor theories and distinctions between direct aiding and natural-and-probable-consequences liability)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (describes the §1170.95 three-step review and use of the record of conviction at the prima facie stage)
- People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (holds trial court should not resolve factual disputes at §1170.95(c) and should issue order to show cause when eligibility is not disproved by record)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (discusses limits of SB 1437 on felony murder and the role of direct aiding-and-abetting liability)
- People v. Lee (Lee II), 49 Cal.App.5th 254 (addresses application of SB 1437 to natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine and §1170.95 procedure)