People v. Miskam CA4/2
E076504
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 4, 2021Background:
- In 2016 Miskam was charged with murder (§ 187) and second‑degree robbery (§ 211); he accepted a plea and pled to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192(a)) and grand theft (§ 487(c)).
- He was sentenced to an aggregate 11 years; the original murder and robbery counts were dismissed per the plea.
- In 2019, after enactment of Senate Bill 1437, which added Penal Code § 1170.95, Miskam petitioned to vacate his homicide conviction and be resentenced.
- The trial court denied the § 1170.95 petition on the ground that the statute applies only to murder convictions, and Miskam had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
- Miskam appealed, arguing (1) § 1170.95 should apply to manslaughter, (2) exclusion of manslaughter convictions violates equal protection, and (3) Senate Bill 1437 abrogated the provocative‑act murder doctrine.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding § 1170.95 is limited to murder convictions, the disparate treatment does not violate equal protection, and the provocative‑act doctrine is not implicated here.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Miskam’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.95 relief extends to convictions for voluntary manslaughter | § 1170.95 by its plain language applies only to persons convicted of murder | § 1170.95 should cover those who pled to manslaughter in lieu of facing murder convictions (to avoid surplusage) | Statute is unambiguous: relief limited to murder convictions; manslaughter convictions are ineligible |
| Equal protection challenge to excluding manslaughter convictions from § 1170.95 | Legislature rationally drew a line; murder and manslaughter are different offenses with different punishments | Excluding manslaughter is irrationally more punitive for lesser offenders; violates equal protection | No equal protection violation; defendants convicted of different crimes are not similarly situated and the distinction is rational |
| Whether SB 1437 abrogated the provocative‑act murder doctrine such that petitioner could seek relief | People noted provocative‑act doctrine not at issue because petitioner pled to manslaughter | Miskam argued Lee wrongly held SB 1437 did not abrogate provocative‑act murder and urged rejection | Court found provocative‑act doctrine irrelevant here; Miskam’s conviction was manslaughter and thus ineligible for § 1170.95 relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 48 Cal.App.5th 914 (2020) (construed § 1170.95 as limited to murder convictions)
- People v. Cervantes, 44 Cal.App.5th 884 (2020) (same; § 1170.95 scope limited to murder)
- People v. Flores, 44 Cal.App.5th 985 (2020) (same conclusion on statutory scope)
- People v. Turner, 45 Cal.App.5th 428 (2020) (agrees § 1170.95 does not provide relief to manslaughter convictions)
- People v. Morales, 33 Cal.App.5th 800 (2019) (different crimes generally mean defendants are not similarly situated for equal protection)
- People v. Mejia, 211 Cal.App.4th 586 (2012) (explains provocative‑act murder doctrine)