People v. Thomas CA4/1
D080668
Cal. Ct. App.Nov 30, 2023Background
- In 1981 Thomas and co-defendant George Fredericks were convicted of robbery and first-degree murder; Thomas received 25 years to life plus one year for a firearm enhancement.
- The victim, Roper, was lured to a remote location on Dec 24, 1980; Fredericks shot and killed him during the encounter. Thomas had brought and loaded a gun, lent it to Fredericks, and was present throughout the incident.
- Pretrial statements and testimony conflicted: at times Thomas admitted involvement and suggested he was the shooter; Fredericks and witness Johnson implicated a planned killing with payment to Thomas for his role.
- Postcrime conduct included attempts to retrieve casings, disposal of the weapon and ammunition, and Thomas asking about payment for his participation.
- Thomas filed a section 1172.6 petition; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas was a direct aider and abettor and a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life, and denied resentencing.
- On appeal Thomas argued insufficient evidence supported the court's findings; the Court of Appeal affirmed, applying substantial evidence review and deferring to credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports ineligibility under section 1172.6 | Evidence showed Thomas planned the meeting, supplied/handled the gun, was present, cleaned up casings, and sought payment, so he was an aider/abettor or major participant with reckless indifference | Fredericks' testimony and other evidence show Thomas was an unwilling accomplice or not a major participant; credibility disputes undermine sufficiency | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supports that the People proved ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Banks and Clark factors for major participant and reckless indifference | Trial court's factual findings reflect the Banks/Clark factors (planning role, weapon supply/use, presence, opportunity to prevent, post-crime conduct) | Court failed to expressly analyze those factors and should not infer their application | Held for People. Court is presumed to know and apply law; findings align with Banks and Clark |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on prior appellate factual summary | The court relied on trial transcripts and admitted evidence rather than the prior opinion's summary | Thomas contended prior appellate summary was not an appropriate basis | Held for People. Court sustained objection to appellate summary and relied on admissible trial materials |
| Whether appellate court should reweigh credibility and evidence | The People urge deference to trial court credibility findings and substantial evidence standard | Thomas asks the court to reweigh evidence and reject credibility findings | Held for People. Appellate court will not reweigh evidence and defers to trial court credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (discussing SB 1437 limits on felony-murder liability)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (outlining factors to assess whether defendant was a major participant)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (explaining factors for reckless indifference to human life)
- People v. McCoy, 25 Cal.4th 1111 (aider and abettor must share perpetrator's mental state)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (deference to trial court credibility findings)