People v. Trout CA4/2, E074623

Background:

In April 1995 Trout and codefendant Austin entered a home, tied occupants, threatened the mother, and searched for money; Austin shot and killed a victim during the crime.
Trout carried a large knife, threatened to shoot the mother, later told officers he was present and that he shot the victim, and did not assist the wounded victim.
A jury convicted Trout of first‑degree murder with robbery and burglary special‑circumstance findings and imposed life without parole; this court previously affirmed the convictions.
In 2019 Trout filed a Penal Code § 1170.95 petition (post–SB 1437) seeking resentencing under the narrowed felony‑murder standard; the trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, relying on the preexisting special‑circumstance findings and this court’s prior affirmance.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Trout is ineligible for § 1170.95 relief because the robbery and burglary special‑circumstance findings necessarily establish he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference; the court also held challenges to special‑circumstance sufficiency must proceed by habeas.
A concurring opinion agreed with the majority; a dissent argued the trial court should have held an evidentiary § 1170.95 hearing to reassess sufficiency under People v. Banks and People v. Clark.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying Trout’s § 1170.95 petition	Trout’s robbery/burglary special‑circumstance findings (and appellate affirmance) conclusively show he was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference, making him ineligible as a matter of law	Banks/Clark changed the legal standards; pre‑Banks/Clark findings cannot conclusively foreclose eligibility and Trout made a prima facie showing requiring an evidentiary hearing	Affirmed: summary denial proper because the record of conviction demonstrates ineligibility as a matter of law
Whether sufficiency of pre‑Banks/Clark special‑circumstance findings can be challenged in § 1170.95 proceedings	Challenges to special‑circumstance findings are not for § 1170.95; the proper vehicle is a habeas corpus petition	§ 1170.95 permits reassessment of murder liability post‑SB 1437, including where Banks/Clark may alter the applicable legal standard	Held for People: the proper vehicle to attack special‑circumstance sufficiency is habeas, not § 1170.95
Whether robbery/burglary special‑circumstance findings here necessarily preclude § 1170.95 relief	The factual findings the jury made (and this court affirmed) establish major participation plus reckless indifference under current law	Trout argues the appellate review did not apply Banks/Clark factors and thus statutory changes could render him eligible	Held: the robbery and burglary special circumstances here necessarily establish reckless indifference; Trout is ineligible for § 1170.95 relief

Key Cases Cited

People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (clarified factors relevant to ‘‘major participant’’ and ‘‘reckless indifference’’)
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016) (further clarified application of Banks factors)
People v. Murillo, 54 Cal.App.5th 160 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses § 1170.95 prima facie review and ineligibility when special circumstance true)
People v. Galvan, 52 Cal.App.5th 1134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (holds a felony‑murder special circumstance finding renders defendant ineligible for § 1170.95 relief)
People v. Gomez, 52 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (upholds that true robbery/kidnapping special circumstances bar § 1170.95 relief)
People v. Jones, 56 Cal.App.5th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (concludes special‑circumstance findings preclude § 1170.95 relief and that habeas is the proper vehicle for attacking those findings)
People v. Torres, 46 Cal.App.5th 1168 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (contrary view that pre‑Banks special‑circumstance findings may not automatically preclude § 1170.95 eligibility)