People v. Sloan CA2/5
B309076
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2022Background
- In 1988 Sloan drove a stolen car carrying Richmond (armed) and Ryals to a victim’s home; Sloan and Ryals posed as police, lured the victim, stepped aside, and Richmond fired, killing the victim. Sloan then fled and participated in a high‑speed chase.
- Sloan was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder (aiding and abetting or felony‑murder) and attempted murder, and sentenced to 34 years to life; the Court of Appeal previously affirmed his convictions.
- In 2019 Sloan petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437) seeking vacatur/resentencing; the trial court appointed counsel, issued an order to show cause, and held a hearing after the People lodged the trial record.
- At the § 1170.95 hearing the trial court found the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt Sloan was a direct aider/abetter with intent to kill and, alternatively, a major participant in the attempted robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life, and denied the petition.
- Sloan appealed raising multiple claims: magistrate’s preliminary‑hearing dismissal as a prior finding entitling mandatory resentencing under § 1170.95(d)(2); failure to hold a proper § 1170.95(d)(3) hearing; use of the substantial‑evidence standard; entitlement to independent appellate review; and insufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a magistrate’s dismissal at preliminary hearing is a "prior finding" under §1170.95(d)(2) requiring mandatory resentencing | Magistrate dismissals are not equivalent to a court/jury finding and do not trigger automatic resentencing | Sloan: the magistrate’s dismissal of a special‑circumstance allegation is a prior court finding that mandates vacatur under d(2) | Rejected — magistrate’s dismissal is not a determination on the merits equivalent to a court/jury finding; §1170.95(d)(2) does not require resentencing on that basis |
| Whether the trial court failed to hold a §1170.95(d)(3) hearing or apply the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard | The court did hold a §1170.95(d)(3) hearing, considered lodged trial record and new evidence, and applied the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard | Sloan: no proper d(3) hearing; court relied on prior opinion and used "substantial evidence" standard | Rejected — record shows a §1170.95(d)(3) hearing, independent fact‑finding, and the court expressly applied the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard |
| Whether the appellate court must conduct independent (de novo) review rather than deferential review | Deferential substantial‑evidence review applies to trial court factual findings after a d(3) hearing | Sloan: appellate court should independently review because trial court relied on cold record/appellate opinion | Rejected — substantial‑evidence standard governs review of trial court factual findings; independent review reserved for predominantly legal questions |
| Whether the evidence was insufficient to show intent to kill or that Sloan was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference | The record contains ample circumstantial evidence (transporting armed shooter, luring victim, stepping aside, facilitating escape, flight, subsequent violent conduct) supporting intent and major‑participant/reckless‑indifference findings | Sloan: evidence insufficient to prove intent to kill or that he was a major participant/recklessly indifferent | Rejected — substantial evidence supports findings that Sloan aided with intent to kill and was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (articulates multi‑factor test to assess whether nonshooter was a "major participant" in felony‑murder)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (clarifies factors to evaluate "reckless indifference to human life" for felony‑murder special circumstances)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (section 1170.95 requires individualized inquiry and allows new evidence at the d(3) hearing)
- People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 1055 (2018) (trial‑court factual findings based on the record of conviction remain entitled to deference)
- People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (2021) (independent review appropriate for predominantly legal questions)
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (2003) (independent review of voluntariness of statements when record is uncontradicted)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence—view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.App.5th 652 (2020) (applies substantial‑evidence review to appellate review of §1170.95 denials after d(3) hearings)