People v. Strong
514 P.3d 265
Cal.2022Background
- In 2007 Strong participated in an attempted robbery; his accomplice fatally shot two victims. Strong was tried in 2014 and convicted of first‑degree felony murder with felony‑murder special‑circumstance findings that he was a "major participant" who acted with "reckless indifference to human life;" he received two LWOP terms plus additional time.
- In 2015–2016 this court decided People v. Banks and People v. Clark, which substantially clarified what it means to be a "major participant" and to act with "reckless indifference."
- In 2018 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1437, amending Penal Code §189 to limit felony‑murder liability and creating §1172.6 to permit retroactive petitions for resentencing where a petitioner "could not presently be convicted of murder" under the amended law.
- Strong filed a §1172.6 petition; the trial court denied it because his unreversed 2014 special‑circumstance findings (pre‑Banks/Clark) established ineligibility. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The California Supreme Court granted review and held that pre‑Banks/Clark felony‑murder special‑circumstance findings do not categorically preclude a prima facie showing under §1172.6 and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do pre‑Banks/Clark felony‑murder special‑circumstance findings categorically bar a §1172.6 prima facie showing? | Pre‑Banks findings conclusively show petitioner was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference and thus are a categorical bar. | Pre‑Banks findings were decided under different, now‑clarified standards (Banks/Clark) and should not automatically bar a prima facie showing. | Pre‑Banks/Clark findings do not categorically bar a prima facie showing; petitioner may proceed under §1172.6. |
| Does §1172.6(a)(3)'s "because of changes to §188 or §189" require that the change be legislative (SB1437) rather than judicial (Banks/Clark)? | SB1437 made no substantive change to those elements; Banks/Clark merely clarified, so §1172.6(a)(3) does not apply. | SB1437 codified the Banks/Clark understandings; the petitioner’s inability to be convicted today is therefore "because of" the 2019 statutory changes. | The Court: SB1437’s changes supply a basis for eligibility; the "because of" language is satisfied when the amended statute (which incorporates the clarified standards) makes conviction unlikely today. |
| Are prior adverse special‑circumstance findings always preclusive (issue preclusion)? | Yes; those findings should ordinarily preclude relitigation in §1172.6 proceedings. | Not always; collateral estoppel yields where law remains the same, but a significant intervening change (Banks/Clark) can defeat preclusion. | Prior findings may be preclusive, but an intervening change in governing law (Banks/Clark) can defeat preclusion and permit relitigation in §1172.6 proceedings. |
| May a trial court deny a §1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage by independently applying Banks/Clark to the record (sufficiency review)? | Yes; courts may review the record and reject petitions if sufficient evidence supports the prior findings under Banks/Clark. | No; conducting that sufficiency review at the prima facie stage improperly decides contested factual issues and usurps the evidentiary hearing the statute provides. | The Court: trial courts should not resolve disputed factual issues or make beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt determinations at the prima facie stage; issuance of an order to show cause is required unless the record conclusively establishes ineligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (clarified "major participant" factors for felony‑murder special circumstance)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (clarified "reckless indifference to human life" factors)
- In re Scoggins, 9 Cal.5th 667 (Cal. 2020) (habeas relief post‑Banks/Clark where undisputed facts fell outside clarified standards)
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (procedural guidance on §1172.6 petitions and prima facie review)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (discussed SB1437’s purpose to limit felony‑murder liability)
- People v. Gonzalez, 54 Cal.4th 643 (Cal. 2012) (overview of felony‑murder doctrine prior to Banks/Clark)
- Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (Supreme Court precedent underlying Prop. 115 major‑participant language)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982) (Supreme Court precedent distinguishing minor actors from those eligible for capital punishment)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1990) (principles governing issue preclusion/collateral estoppel)