People v. R.G. (In re R.G.)
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 24
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- R.G., a juvenile gang member, was found by the juvenile court to have committed second‑degree murder under the natural and probable consequences theory after a co‑participant shot and killed E.L.; juvenile court imposed a maximum term of 40 years to life and commitment to DJJ.
- Senate Bill No. 1437 (2018) amended Penal Code §188 to require actual malice for murder and added Pen. Code §1170.95, creating a petition procedure to vacate murder convictions based on the natural and probable consequences theory and seek resentencing.
- R.G. argues SB 1437 applies retroactively to vacate his juvenile murder finding; the Attorney General contends he is ineligible because he did not file a §1170.95 petition.
- Lower appellate decisions (People v. Anthony; People v. Martinez) hold relief under SB 1437 is not available on direct appeal and that eligible persons must file a §1170.95 petition.
- The central legal question: whether §1170.95’s petition procedure applies to juveniles whose murder allegations were sustained in juvenile court prior to SB 1437.
Issues
| Issue | R.G.'s Argument | Attorney General's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 1437 apply retroactively on direct appeal to vacate juvenile murder finding? | SB 1437 should apply retroactively to his case to overturn the murder finding. | Retroactive relief requires filing a §1170.95 petition; direct appeal is not the proper vehicle. | Not on direct appeal; relief requires a §1170.95 petition. |
| Does §1170.95 apply to juvenile adjudications sustained in juvenile court? | §1170.95's language limits to superior court/criminal proceedings, so it does not apply to juveniles. | §1170.95 applies to juveniles when read in context with Welf. & Inst. Code §§602 and 726 and precedent. | §1170.95 is available to juveniles whose murder allegation was sustained on a natural and probable consequences theory. |
| Would excluding juveniles from §1170.95 create sentencing disparity with adults? | (Implicit) Juveniles should not get different remedy. | (AG) Statutory text governs; but context matters. | Excluding juveniles would conflict with Welf. & Inst. Code §726 and equalize maximum confinement; thus §1170.95 must be available to juveniles. |
| Is R.G. entitled to relief now without filing a petition? | Relief is warranted on appeal without petition. | He must file §1170.95 petition first. | R.G. has not filed §1170.95; relief is premature. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (describing pre‑SB1437 natural and probable consequences murder liability)
- People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (foreseeability basis for natural and probable consequences liability)
- In re Jovan B., 6 Cal.4th 801 (principles for applying Penal Code provisions in juvenile proceedings)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (applying §1170.18 relief principles to juveniles)
- In re C.B., 6 Cal.5th 118 (Supreme Court approval of Alejandro N. reasoning)
- People v. Anthony, 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 (holding SB1437 relief is obtained via §1170.95 petition, not direct appeal)