38 Cal.App.5th 1087
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2012 Pedro Martinez shot at volunteers who confronted Janeth Lopez while she sprayed graffiti on a rival-gang church wall; Andres Ordonez died and Santos Baquiax was wounded. Lopez tagged the wall and Navarrete drove the getaway BMW.
- Martinez was convicted of first‑degree murder and attempted premeditated murder; Lopez and Navarrete were later convicted (after retrial) of second‑degree murder (under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine), attempted premeditated murder, vandalism, and gang and firearm enhancements.
- The convictions rested at trial on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability (aider/co‑conspirator theory) for the non‑target offenses; gang expert testimony tied the conduct to Rockwood Street gang activity.
- While appeals were pending the Legislature enacted SB 1437 (2018) narrowing accomplice liability for murder and added Penal Code § 1170.95 (a postconviction petition process); SB 620 (2017) later authorized courts to strike certain firearm enhancements.
- The Court of Appeal (after Supreme Court transfer) held SB 1437 eliminates murder liability under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine and remanded for § 1170.95 proceedings, but affirmed convictions for attempted premeditated murder and gang findings; it also ordered resentencing to correct sentencing errors and to allow exercise of discretion under SB 620 and a Franklin hearing for Lopez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 1437 eliminate convictions for murder under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine? | People: SB 1437 limits imputed malice and thus bars murder convictions premised solely on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences. | Lopez/Navarrete: SB 1437 should not apply or they are not entitled to relief. | Held: SB 1437 abolishes murder liability under natural‑and‑probable‑consequences; defendants may seek relief via § 1170.95 in trial court. |
| Does SB 1437 also eliminate attempted premeditated murder liability under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine? | People: SB 1437 addresses murder only; it does not change attempt law. | Lopez/Navarrete: SB 1437’s redefinition of malice and remedial purpose should extend to attempted murder. | Held: SB 1437 does not reach attempted murder; convictions for attempted premeditated murder under natural‑and‑probable‑consequences remain valid. |
| Is SB 1437’s limitation to murder (and not attempted murder) an equal‑protection violation? | People: Legislature may rationally limit reform to murder and proceeded step‑by‑step; rational‑basis review applies. | Lopez/Navarrete: Underinclusive reform irrationally punishes accomplices more when a victim survives. | Held: No equal‑protection violation; groups are not similarly situated for this reform and the Legislature had plausible rationales (severity, resources). |
| Are there sentencing and remand issues (firearm enhancements, gang enhancements, Franklin, § 1170.95 process)? | People: SB 620 allows court discretion to strike firearm enhancements; § 1170.95 governs retroactive relief; trial court should decide Franklin record. | Lopez/Navarrete: Various sentencing errors and entitlement to immediate relief on appeal. | Held: Remand for § 1170.95 petitions in trial court; correct sentencing errors (improper prior‑serious enhancement and duplicative gang/firearm penalties), consider SB 620 discretion, and afford Lopez a Franklin hearing re: youth factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (limits on applying natural‑and‑probable‑consequences to first‑degree premeditated murder)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (1996) (explaining natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine elements)
- People v. Favor, 54 Cal.4th 868 (2012) (aider/abettor need only reasonably foresee attempted premeditated murder under natural‑and‑probable‑consequences)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (2015) (proof needed to treat gang subsets as a single criminal street gang)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (limits on gang‑expert testimony about case‑specific hearsay)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016) (trial‑court record development of youth‑related factors for parole hearings)
- People v. Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (2019) (limits and careful application of the kill‑zone theory for attempted murder)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (2016) (Estrada presumption and exclusive postconviction procedures for retroactive ameliorative relief)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative criminal statutes)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury)