People v. Ware CA4/2
E076404
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 23, 2021Background
- In 1995 Ware was convicted of multiple offenses including two counts of premeditated attempted murder and received consecutive life terms plus determinate terms.
- In October 2019 Ware filed a pro se petition under Penal Code §1170.95 (Senate Bill No. 1437) seeking resentencing, asserting the amendments to §§188 and 189 affect his convictions.
- The People opposed, arguing SB 1437 and §1170.95 apply only to murder, not attempted murder; counsel later filed a reply arguing the statute should include attempted murder.
- The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding §1170.95 applies only to murder convictions.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, relying principally on People v. Munoz and similar authority, and noted that SB 775 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) later expanded §1170.95 to include attempted murder (but that change postdates Ware’s petition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437/§1170.95 applies to attempted murder convictions | §1170.95’s plain text and purpose limit relief to murder; attempted murder not covered | §1170.95 should reach attempted murder because attempted murder requires malice and is a lesser included offense of murder | Court held §1170.95 applies only to murder; petition properly dismissed (followed Munoz) |
| Whether excluding attempted murder produces absurd or unintended results | Legislature repeatedly referred to "murder"; uncodified findings show intent to limit relief to murder | Excluding attempted murder creates perverse sentencing disparities and thwarts legislative intent | Court rejected absurdity argument; plain language controls and results are not sufficiently absurd to override text |
| Whether exclusion violates equal protection | Different offenses and penalties justify different treatment; rational basis exists for limiting relief to murder | Murder and attempted murder are similarly situated because both require malice; exclusion is arbitrary | Court found they are not similarly situated for §1170.95 purposes and upheld exclusion under rational-basis review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held SB 1437/§1170.95 does not apply to attempted murder; relied on plain statutory language)
- People v. Larios, 42 Cal.App.5th 956 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (interpreted §188 amendments as affecting accomplice liability but agreed §1170.95 petitioning is limited to murder)
- People v. Medrano, 42 Cal.App.5th 1001 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (similar to Larios; §1170.95 relief limited to murder convictions)
- People v. Martinez, 31 Cal.App.5th 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (summarized SB 1437’s purpose and amendments to §§188 and 189)
- In re R.G., 35 Cal.App.5th 141 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (explained malice amendment and its effect on imputed malice)
- People v. Alaybue, 51 Cal.App.5th 207 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (explained §1170.95’s repeated references to murder indicate the Legislature intended relief only for completed murder)