People v. Richardson CA4/3
G062822
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 21, 2025Background
- In May 1988, John Mitchell Richardson and Gerald King planned and attempted an armed robbery of a check cashing business (Cash Unlimited) in Santa Ana, California.
- Richardson supplied King with a gun, was aware of King's violent tendencies, and participated in planning, recruiting a getaway driver, and carrying out the robbery.
- During the attempted robbery, King and the business owner, Phillip Brower, exchanged gunfire and both were killed; Richardson fled the scene.
- Richardson was convicted in 1989 of first-degree murder (felony murder rule), attempted robbery, and a prior robbery, and sentenced to 26 years to life.
- Following legislative changes (Senate Bill 1437), Richardson petitioned for resentencing, arguing he was not a major participant and did not act with reckless indifference to human life as required under the amended law (Penal Code § 1172.6).
- The trial court denied the petition, and Richardson appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Richardson a major participant in the felony? | Planned and led robbery, supplied gun, prior similar robbery | No direct role in shooting, did not confront victim | Yes, substantial evidence supports major role |
| Did Richardson act with reckless indifference? | Aware of risks, armed King, did nothing to minimize dangers | Lacked intent, was unarmed, tried to back out | Yes, evidence supports reckless indifference |
| Should youth at time of offense mitigate culpability? | Considered, but totality shows sufficient reckless indifference | Immature, failed to appreciate risks as a youth | Age considered, but evidence still sufficient |
| Was evidence sufficient under amended felony murder rule? | Met statutory standard: major participant + reckless indifference | Insufficient under new legal rules | Evidence sufficient; order denying petition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (defines 'major participant' factor in felony murder)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (outlines 'reckless indifference to human life' analysis)
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (Cal. 2022) (procedural standards for resentencing petitions under SB 1437)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (limits felony-murder culpability where no intent to kill)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) (major participation plus reckless indifference standard for felony-murder liability)