People v. Santana CA2/6
B299353M
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 22, 2022Background
- In 2002 Andres Santana was convicted of two counts of murder and two counts of robbery; the jury found true felony-murder special circumstance allegations (robbery, gang benefit, and multiple murders). Sentence: life without parole plus additional enhancement (later partly struck on appeal).
- Facts: Santana and an accomplice approached victims during a robbery, beat them with a blunt instrument; both victims died of skull fractures; an eyewitness identified Santana at the scene and at trial.
- In 2019 Santana filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition (S.B. 1437 relief) seeking vacation of his murder convictions and resentencing.
- The trial court denied the petition without appointing counsel, concluding the felony-murder special circumstance true finding established Santana was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference, and the jury was not instructed under the natural-and-probable-consequences theory.
- On appeal the court affirmed, holding the pre-Banks/Clark true special-circumstance finding rendered Santana ineligible for 1170.95 relief as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Santana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a pre-Banks/Clark true finding on a felony-murder special circumstance bars eligibility for relief under Penal Code § 1170.95 | The special-circumstance true finding shows Santana was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference and thus is ineligible as a matter of law | A pre-Banks/Clark true finding cannot be used to deny 1170.95 relief; Banks/Clark clarified standards and no jury ever made findings under those clarifications | Held: True special-circumstance finding renders Santana ineligible for § 1170.95 relief as a matter of law; SB 1437 covers statutory changes effective Jan 1, 2019, not prior clarifications |
| Whether Banks and Clark are changes covered by § 1170.95 or merely clarifications that must be addressed by habeas corpus | SB 1437 changes determine § 1170.95 eligibility; Banks/Clark are clarifications predating SB 1437 and therefore do not make a petitioner eligible | Banks/Clark changed application of standards; lack of a Banks/Clark-era finding means 1170.95 relief might still be available | Held: Banks/Clark were clarifications (decided 2015–2016) and do not render a petitioner eligible under § 1170.95; challenge to pre-Banks/Clark special circumstance must proceed via habeas corpus |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying the petition without appointing counsel | No error because the petition was legally frivolous/nonmeritorious—petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law | Santana argued he stated a prima facie case and was entitled to counsel | Held: Denial without appointing counsel was proper because the special-circumstance finding made him ineligible as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (clarified that reckless indifference requires subjective awareness of grave risk of death)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (articulated factors to determine whether a defendant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference)
- In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (2020) (pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance convictions may be challenged by habeas corpus if conduct does not meet the clarified standards)
- People v. Galvan, 52 Cal.App.5th 1134 (2020) (pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance finding bars § 1170.95 relief as a matter of law)
- People v. Gomez, 52 Cal.App.5th 1 (2020) (same: pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance finding precludes § 1170.95 eligibility)
- People v. Jones, 56 Cal.App.5th 474 (2020) (endorsing the view that pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance findings render petitioners ineligible for § 1170.95 relief)