People v. Rivera CA4/2
E075838A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 6, 2022Background
- Rivera was convicted in 2010 of first‑degree murder, attempted robbery (lesser included), and residential burglary; sentenced to 25 years‑to‑life plus eight years.
- In 2019 Rivera petitioned for relief under Penal Code § 1170.95 after Senate Bill 1437 amended felony‑murder liability.
- The trial court held a § 1170.95(d) hearing based on the record of conviction; the People relied largely on Rivera’s recorded police interview and the trial transcript.
- Facts: Rivera joined a four‑person entry into Buckingham’s apartment to assault/rob Buckingham; there had been prior violent encounters and threats; violence escalated and gunfire killed Atencio.
- A Sig Sauer recovered after the incident (registered to Rivera’s father) fired the bullets that killed Atencio; the gun was found in the car Rivera had driven.
- The trial court found Rivera was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life and denied the § 1170.95 petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rivera is ineligible for § 1170.95 relief because he was a "major participant" who acted with reckless indifference | Rivera planned and joined a violent, armed home‑invasion robbery, knew participants were armed, transported the car containing the murder weapon, and positioned himself so his actions/inaction helped enable the killing | Rivera had a limited role: he denied knowing the gun was in the car, hid in the bedroom when shots fired, and intended only to recover money for car damage | Held: Substantial evidence supports finding Rivera was a major participant and acted with reckless indifference; petition denied |
| Proper legal standard at a § 1170.95(d) eligibility hearing | People argued their burden is to prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt to the trial court (independent finding) | Rivera argued against that interpretation (and contested sufficiency of evidence) | Held: The court followed the view requiring the People to prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt and applied substantial‑evidence review on appeal |
| Whether the record of conviction provides sufficient evidence to satisfy Banks/Clark factors (planning, weapon role, awareness, presence, actions after killing) | The record (statements, trial testimony, ballistics, gun in Rivera’s car, prior incidents) supports each Banks/Clark factor | Rivera contends the record shows only passive presence and lack of knowledge of the weapon | Held: Substantial evidence supports each factor—planning, access to/connection with weapon, awareness of danger, presence, and failure to aid—so ineligibility is established |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (setting multi‑factor test for whether defendant was a major participant)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (identifying factors for reckless indifference to human life)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (describing § 1170.95 procedure and burdens)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (noting overlap between major participation and reckless indifference)
- People v. Fortman, 64 Cal.App.5th 217 (endorsing independent beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt finding by the trial court at § 1170.95(d))
- People v. Duke, 55 Cal.App.5th 113 (contrasting view that the People need only show substantial evidence of guilt under the post‑SB 1437 standard)