People v. Zuniga CA5
F078866
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2021Background:
- In 2010 Ronnie Joseph Zuniga was convicted by jury of three counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code §§ 664, 187) and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246); firearm enhancements under § 12022.53 were found true.
- Senate Bill 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended murder liability and added Penal Code § 1170.95, which allows certain persons convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to petition for resentencing.
- In 2019 Zuniga filed a § 1170.95 petition (checking boxes asserting the charging document allowed prosecution under felony murder/NPC and that he could not now be convicted of murder); he also requested appointment of counsel.
- The trial court denied the petition a week later, concluding Zuniga was convicted of attempted murder and therefore could not make a prima facie showing of eligibility under § 1170.95.
- Zuniga appealed, arguing (1) § 1170.95 should apply to attempted murder convictions and refusing to do so violates equal protection, and (2) the court erred by failing to appoint counsel when the petition was filed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: § 1170.95 is limited to murder convictions, excluding attempted murder, and any failure to appoint counsel before issuing an order to show cause was harmless because Zuniga is categorically ineligible.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Zuniga) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.95 applies to attempted murder convictions | § 1170.95 applies only to murder; attempted murder convictions are excluded by the statute and legislative history | § 1170.95 should cover attempted murder because petitioners like Zuniga are similarly situated to those convicted of murder (both committed acts that could cause death) | Held: § 1170.95 is limited to murder convictions; attempted murder convictions are categorically excluded |
| Whether exclusion of attempted murderers from § 1170.95 violates equal protection | Rational basis supports limiting relief to murder convictions (legislative rationales include culpability distinctions and administrative/cost concerns) | Exclusion violates equal protection; Zuniga is similarly situated and strict scrutiny applies because liberty is at stake | Held: Rational basis review applies; Legislature has rational basis to limit § 1170.95 to murder convictions; no equal protection violation |
| Whether the trial court erred by not appointing counsel when the petition was filed | Appointment of counsel not required until court makes threshold prima facie determination; any failure was harmless because petitioner was ineligible | Court should have appointed counsel upon filing a facially sufficient petition; failure is structural error | Held: Failure to appoint counsel at filing (if error) is not structural and was harmless here because Zuniga was ineligible for relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Medrano, 42 Cal.App.5th 1001 (2019) (interpreting § 1170.95 as limited to certain murder convictions and excluding attempted murder)
- People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (2019) (upholding rational basis for limiting § 1170.95 relief to murder convictions on policy and resource grounds)
- People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (2019) (similar analysis supporting rational-basis review and legislative prerogative)
- People v. Larios, 42 Cal.App.5th 956 (2019) (concluding § 1170.95 is limited to murder convictions)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (2004) (no fundamental right to a particular sentencing label or fixed term invoking strict scrutiny)
- People v. Cooper, 54 Cal.App.5th 106 (2020) (discussing when appointment of counsel may be required for § 1170.95 petitions)
- People v. Rouse, 245 Cal.App.4th 292 (2016) (addressing right to counsel at resentencing hearings under a different resentencing statute)