57 Cal.App.5th 652
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In Feb 1969 Williams (age 20) and two juveniles attempted to rob a milkman; the milkman was shot and later died. Williams was charged with first-degree murder and convicted after a jury trial.
- Trial evidence included testimony from two juvenile accomplices (immunity granted), and the record noted Williams "held the murder weapon when it was fired." Sentence: life with parole (death penalty rejected); a 1203.01 judge/DA statement summarized the killing and implicated Williams as a principal.
- Williams later served time for a separate 1980 murder; in March 2019 while incarcerated he filed a verified Penal Code §1170.95 petition seeking vacatur/resentencing of the 1969 conviction under SB 1437.
- At the §1170.95 hearing the court judicially noticed and admitted as exhibits the sentencing transcript, the 1203.01 statement, and the prior appellate opinion affirming conviction; the People relied on these to prove ineligibility for relief.
- The superior court found the hearsay was reliable and concluded Williams was a "major participant" who acted with "reckless indifference to human life" (per Banks/Clark factors) and therefore ineligible for resentencing; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of hearsay at §1170.95 hearing (prior appellate opinion, 1203.01 statement) | Superior court may consider such documents as new/additional evidence; §1170.95 permits broad evidentiary consideration | Hearsay/Evidence Code limits bar admission of those out-of-court statements | Court: hearsay may be considered at §1170.95(d)(3) if there is a substantial basis for reliability; admission was proper |
| Reliability of the 1203.01 statement and prior opinion as sources of facts | 1203.01 is a factual summary used for correctional/parole purposes; appellate opinion reasonably summarizes the trial record | Williams argued these are unreliable hearsay and sought exclusion | Court: both were sufficiently reliable (1203.01 designed as factual summary; appellate opinion presumed accurate) and could inform eligibility determination |
| Eligibility for resentencing under amended §189 (major participant + reckless indifference) | Evidence (planning at Williams's home, adult leader of juveniles, held the gun when fired, fled without aid) shows major participation and reckless indifference | Williams argued facts do not establish he was a major participant or that he shared intent/awareness required by Banks/Clark | Court: substantial evidence supports finding Williams was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference; §1170.95 relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (2016) (factors for assessing major participant and reckless indifference)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (same; multi-factor inquiry for accomplice culpability in felony murder)
- People v. Sledge, 7 Cal.App.5th 1089 (2017) (post-conviction resentencing hearings may consider reliable hearsay)
- People v. Guilford, 228 Cal.App.4th 651 (2014) (prior appellate opinion admissible to resolve resentencing petitions)
- People v. Douglas, 56 Cal.App.5th 1 (2020) (discussion of §189 amendment and post-conviction implications)