53 Cal.App.5th 467
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2005 Santos was convicted of first-degree murder under a felony-murder theory and sentenced by Judge Michael Pastor to 25 years to life plus a consecutive 25-years-to-life firearm enhancement.
- Santos filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437) in January 2019, alleging he was not the actual killer, lacked intent to kill, and was not a major participant acting with reckless indifference.
- Judge George Lomeli (Department 107) denied the petition before counsel filed a reply, concluding Santos was a major participant and also ruling SB 1437 unconstitutional.
- Santos, through counsel, filed a second petition in the department where Judge Pastor then sat (Department 110). Judge Lomeli again denied relief, asserting the petition had properly been heard by the sentencing court (Dept. 107) and that the presiding judge had designated his department to decide it.
- On appeal the parties agreed SB 1437 and § 1170.95 are constitutional and that Santos made a prima facie showing of eligibility; the dispute concerned whether the original sentencing judge must decide the petition and whether the summary denial was proper.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded: it held (1) summary denial was improper because the record did not preclude eligibility and counsel had not had a chance to respond, and (2) § 1170.95(b)(1) requires the individual judge who sentenced the petitioner to rule on the petition unless that judge is unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Santos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of SB 1437 and § 1170.95 | SB 1437 and § 1170.95 are constitutional | SB argued court below wrongly found statute unconstitutional | Court held SB 1437 and § 1170.95 are constitutional (parties agreed) |
| Prima facie eligibility under § 1170.95 | Santos did not meet prima facie showing or record showed he was ineligible as a matter of law | Santos made a prima facie showing (not a major participant; no reckless indifference) | Court held record did not conclusively show ineligibility; petitioner made a prima facie showing and was entitled to further proceedings with counsel |
| Who must rule on § 1170.95 petition — the "judge" who sentenced or the sentencing "court"/department | "Judge" may refer to the tribunal/department; presiding judge may assign the petition to the department that handled the original case | "Judge" means the individual judge who originally sentenced the petitioner and must rule unless unavailable | Court held "judge" means the individual judge who sentenced the petitioner; that judge must rule unless unavailable |
| Validity of summary denial based on review of "overall record" before counsel responded | The court may deny if record shows ineligibility as a matter of law | Denial premature; court must appoint counsel and allow petitioner to respond if record does not conclusively establish ineligibility | Court held summary denial was improper where eligibility required assessment of evidence; trial court must appoint counsel and allow briefing before denying |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rodriguez, 1 Cal.5th 676 (Supreme Court of California) (familiarity of sentencing judge relevant to later motions)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (Court of Appeal) (§ 1170.95 prima facie and appointment of counsel framework)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (Court of Appeal) (limits on eligibility where jury not instructed on felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences)
- People v. Cervantes, 44 Cal.App.5th 884 (Court of Appeal) (purpose of SB 1437 to address felony-murder unfairness)
- People v. Smith, 49 Cal.App.5th 85 (Court of Appeal) (trial court may not resolve contested factual eligibility before appointment of counsel and briefing)
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (Supreme Court of California) (unavailability of a judge requires more than mere administrative convenience)