B332213
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 18, 2025Background
- In 1999, Karl Franklin Stewart was convicted of special circumstance murder, attempted robbery, and burglary for the 1981 killing of Enid Whittlesey in her home.
- Stewart’s conviction was based on evidence including his fingerprint at the crime scene and multiple inconsistent statements to police, with the prosecution presenting Stewart as the sole perpetrator and killer.
- The jury was instructed on first-degree murder (CALJIC 8.10), premeditated murder (CALJIC 8.20), and felony murder (CALJIC 8.21), but not on accomplice liability or derivative theories such as aiding and abetting.
- In 2022, Stewart filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95) after legislative changes narrowed the scope of felony-murder liability.
- The trial court denied Stewart’s resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding the record established Stewart as the actual killer, making him ineligible for relief under the new law.
- Stewart appealed the denial, arguing the jury instructions did not foreclose conviction under a now-invalid felony-murder theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for resentencing under § 1172.6 | Stewart was convicted as actual killer; thus ineligible | Jury instructions allowed for conviction under an invalid felony-murder theory | Court affirms Stewart was convicted as actual killer and is ineligible |
| Interpretation of Jury Instructions | Instructions required jury to find Stewart was the killer | CALJIC 8.21 language could have allowed conviction as non-killer | CALJIC 8.10 and 8.21 together require actual killer finding |
| Consideration of Closing Arguments | Closing arguments show only actual killer theory was argued | Closing arguments should not be weighed at prima facie stage | Closing arguments are part of record, can be considered |
| Derivative Liability or Alternative Theories Raised | No evidence or argument Stewart was anything but actual killer | Possible juror reliance on invalid theory not definitively precluded | No alternate theory presented; Stewart only participant |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (describes § 1172.6 procedure and standards)
- People v. Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (Cal. 1999) (ambiguous jury instructions must be interpreted in full context)
- People v. Bouzas, 53 Cal.3d 467 (Cal. 1991) (failure to address argument is considered a concession)