People v. Trotter CA2/3
B309637
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 3, 2021Background
- In April 1986 Trotter broke into Charlene Hartsough’s home, strangled and bludgeoned her to death, and stole items; he later turned himself in.
- In 1988 Trotter pleaded guilty to first degree murder with special-circumstance allegations (felony-murder–related) and personal use of a weapon; he stated he did not intentionally kill the victim at plea time.
- After a federal habeas grant and retrial on special-circumstance allegations, a jury found the special circumstances true and Trotter was sentenced to life without parole.
- In 2020 Trotter petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.95 (SB 1437 relief), requested counsel, and did not deny being the actual killer.
- The superior court denied the petition ex parte, finding Trotter was the actual killer and thus ineligible under §§ 1170.95 and 189(e)(1); Trotter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the court’s failure to appoint counsel under Lewis reversible error? | Failure was harmless because the record conclusively refuted eligibility. | Lewis requires appointment; counsel was requested and not appointed. | Error to not appoint counsel, but harmless under Watson because record shows no reasonable probability of a different result. |
| Was Trotter eligible for resentencing under § 1170.95 after SB 1437? | Trotter was the actual killer and jury found intent to kill; SB 1437 does not alter his liability. | SB 1437’s changes to §§ 188/189 might make him ineligible for murder conviction relief. | Ineligible as a matter of law: he was the actual killer and intent was found, so SB 1437 does not affect his conviction. |
| Are Wende procedures applicable and must the appellate court do independent review? | Court may dismiss if no supplemental brief; some authority rejects Wende here but discretionary review is appropriate. | Counsel filed a Wende-type brief raising no issues and requested independent review. | Court exercised its discretion to perform an independent Wende review and found no arguable issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (procedure for counsel-appointed briefs raising no arguable issues).
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021) (requirements for appointment of counsel and prima facie review under § 1170.95).
- People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (2020) (discussing postconviction appeal procedures after § 1170.95 denial).
- People v. Flores, 54 Cal.App.5th 266 (2020) (discretion to independently review appeals from summary denials of § 1170.95 petitions).
- People v. Johnson, 6 Cal.4th 1 (1993) (due process/ex post facto application of intent-to-kill rule for crimes between Carlos and Anderson).
- People v. Anderson, 43 Cal.3d 1104 (1987) (actual killer not required to have specific intent-to-kill for felony-murder special circumstance).
- Carlos v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.3d 131 (1983) (holding intent to kill was element of felony-murder special circumstance before Anderson).
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (2006) (counsel obligations when filing a Wende brief).
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (standard for assessing prejudice from nonconstitutional error).