People v. Martinez
242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 860
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Los Angeles County firefighters found a burning SUV with a dead body identified as Christopher Waters; Jose Angel Martinez (defendant) and Adrian Berumen were arrested and charged with Waters's murder.
- A jury convicted Martinez of first-degree murder and arson; appeal followed.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury on self-defense based on Martinez's pretrial statements to police, though Martinez did not request self-defense instructions and did not assert self-defense at trial.
- The trial court denied a lesser-related-offense instruction for accessory after the fact over Martinez's request and without prosecutor concurrence.
- While Martinez’s appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019), which amended murder liability and created Penal Code § 1170.95, a petition procedure for retroactive relief from certain murder convictions.
- Martinez sought on appeal the benefit of SB 1437 retroactively; the Court of Appeal considered instructional errors and whether SB 1437 applies on direct appeal to nonfinal convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by giving self-defense instructions based on pretrial statements when defendant did not request them and did not assert self-defense at trial | Prosecution: instructions were supported by pretrial statements and trial court discretion | Martinez: instructions conflicted with his trial theory and were given without his request, so were erroneous | Error to give unsolicited self-defense instructions, but error was harmless (did not contribute to verdict) |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to give a lesser-related-offense instruction (accessory after the fact) absent prosecution concurrence | Prosecution: Birks controls; court may decline without concurrence | Martinez: court should have instructed on lesser related offense | No error; trial court correctly declined without prosecution consent under People v. Birks |
| Whether Senate Bill 1437 applies retroactively on direct appeal (so defendant can obtain reversal based on changed murder elements) | Martinez: Estrada retroactivity presumption applies to nonfinal appeals; he can obtain relief on direct appeal | State/AG: SB 1437 contains its own retroactivity mechanism (§ 1170.95); defendants must use the petition process rather than direct appeal | SB 1437 does not apply on direct appeal to bypass § 1170.95; defendant must pursue relief via the statutory petition procedure (but may seek a stay/remand to file a petition) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Birks, 19 Cal.4th 108 (1998) (trial court may decline lesser-related-offense instruction absent prosecution concurrence)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative statutes presumed retroactive to nonfinal judgments unless Legislature indicates otherwise)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (2016) (Proposition 36 created its own retroactivity/petition process; direct-appeal retroactivity limited)
- People v. DeHoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (2018) (Proposition 47 contained its own petitioning/recall procedure; defendants must use statutory mechanism for retroactive relief)