49 Cal.App.5th 85
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1994 Smith was convicted of first-degree murder under a felony-murder theory with a robbery-murder special-circumstance (§ 190.2(a)(17)); he received life without parole plus 16 years.
- The 1994 jury also convicted Smith of multiple related felonies; the robbery-murder special circumstance was affirmed on direct appeal in 1996.
- In January 2019 Smith petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.95 (as enacted by SB 1437) seeking vacatur and resentencing, asserting he was not the actual killer, not a major participant, and did not act with reckless indifference; he requested appointment of counsel.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel, citing (1) the 1996 affirmed special-circumstance finding and (2) a claim that SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended Prop. 7/§ 190.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded: it held SB 1437 does not unconstitutionally amend § 190, and that Smith made a prima facie showing entitling him to appointment of counsel and the opportunity to develop a record under § 1170.95.
- The court reasoned that the pre-Banks/Clark special-circumstance finding does not automatically preclude eligibility because Banks and Clark changed the governing definitions of “major participant” and “reckless indifference.”
Issues
| Issue | People (Plaintiff) Argument | Smith (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended § 190 (Prop. 7) | SB 1437 is valid (People conceded no unconstitutional amendment) | SB 1437 unconstitutionally amends voter‑enacted § 190 | SB 1437 does not unconstitutionally amend § 190; trial court erred on this ground |
| Whether Smith was entitled to counsel before the court ruled on the petition | Counsel entitlement attaches only after prima facie showing; trial court properly could deny if record precludes eligibility | Smith was entitled to appointment of counsel before the court made a merits determination | Smith made a prima facie showing under § 1170.95 and was entitled to appointed counsel and an opportunity to brief |
| Whether the pre‑Banks/Clark robbery‑murder special‑circumstance finding bars relief as a matter of law | The 1996 affirmed special‑circumstance finding (major participant + reckless indifference) precludes eligibility | Pre‑Banks/Clark findings cannot be treated as resolving the post‑Banks/Clark legal standards; they do not automatically bar relief | A pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance finding is not dispositive; eligibility may require factual analysis in light of Banks and Clark |
| Whether the trial court could deny the petition based solely on the record of conviction without allowing additional evidence | The record/appeal opinion demonstrates Smith was a major participant with reckless indifference, so denial was proper | § 1170.95 allows petitioners to offer new or additional evidence; denying before counsel and briefing deprived Smith of the opportunity to develop the record | Trial court erred by relying solely on the prior opinion and denying relief before appointing counsel and permitting briefing; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (defines scope of "major participant" in felony‑murder context)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (refines "reckless indifference" standard for felony‑murder liability)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (2020) (describes § 1170.95 prima facie determination and counsel/briefing requirements)
- People v. Torres, 46 Cal.App.5th 1168 (2020) (holds petitioner must make prima facie showing to obtain appointed counsel under § 1170.95)
- People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (2020) (explains when record of conviction can show ineligibility as a matter of law)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (2019) (concludes SB 1437 does not amend Prop. 7/§ 190)
- People v. Superior Court (Gooden), 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (2019) (same conclusion on SB 1437 constitutionality)