People v. Lewis
11 Cal.5th 952
| Cal. | 2021Background
- Vince E. Lewis was convicted of first‑degree murder (25 years to life) for a 2012 gang killing; on direct appeal the Court of Appeal found the jury could have convicted on a valid theory of direct aiding and abetting.
- Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019), which narrowed felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability and added Penal Code § 1170.95 to permit retroactive relief.
- § 1170.95 permits a petitioner to file a petition (stating eligibility and whether counsel is requested), after which the court must determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie showing; if so, issue an order to show cause and hold a hearing.
- Lewis filed a facially sufficient § 1170.95 petition requesting counsel; the superior court denied it summarily without appointing counsel, relying on the record of conviction; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve (1) whether courts may consider the record of conviction at the prima facie stage and (2) when appointed counsel is required under § 1170.95(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may consider the record of conviction at the § 1170.95 prima facie stage | Court can do an initial, pre‑briefing check of the record to deny clearly ineligible petitions before appointing counsel | Court may consider the record only after counsel is appointed and the parties brief the petition | The court may consider the record of conviction, but only after counsel is appointed (if requested) and briefing is complete; the prima facie stage is a single inquiry |
| Whether § 1170.95(c) creates a two‑step prima facie process that delays appointment of counsel until after an initial, unrepresented review | § 1170.95(c) contemplates two sequential prima facie steps and counsel need not be appointed until after step one | § 1170.95(c) contemplates a single prima facie determination and mandates appointment of counsel (if requested) upon filing a facially sufficient petition | § 1170.95(c) describes one prima facie inquiry; if a petitioner requests counsel and the petition complies with § 1170.95(b), the court shall appoint counsel before resolving the prima facie issue |
| Effect of failing to appoint counsel at the prima facie stage — structural error or harmless state‑law error, and applicable standard | Implicitly: denial of counsel can be harmless in many cases; no automatic reversal | Deprivation is a structural error requiring automatic reversal | Failure to appoint counsel was state‑law error only, reviewed for prejudice under People v. Watson; case remanded to Court of Appeal to evaluate prejudice under Watson |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (natural‑and‑probable‑consequences cannot support first‑degree premeditated murder conviction where defendant did not intend or perpetrate the killing)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (articulating harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for state law error review)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (Cal. 1993) (due process requires appointment of counsel when a habeas petitioner makes a prima facie showing warranting an evidentiary hearing)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel for most state postconviction collateral proceedings)
- People v. Lightsey, 54 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 2012) (failure to appoint counsel at competency proceedings can be structural error)
- In re Serrano, 10 Cal.4th 447 (Cal. 1995) (court should not reject petitioner’s factual allegations on credibility grounds without an evidentiary hearing)
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (Cal. 1998) (appellate opinions are part of the record of conviction but may not resolve all factual questions)
- In re Barnett, 31 Cal.4th 466 (Cal. 2003) (no unconditional constitutional right to counsel for state collateral relief proceedings)