THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN RAY EYNON, Defendant and Appellant.
E074962
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 9/15/21
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Super.Ct.No. RIF143793)
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed with directions.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne G. McGinnis and Charles C. Ragland, Deputy Attorneys Generаl, for Plaintiff
In 2013, Steven Ray Eynon pled guilty to premeditated first degree murder and admitted that the murder was committed during a robbery. The information alleged that a codefendant was the actual killer.
In 2019, Eynon filed a petition to vacate his murder conviction under
On appeal, the People argue that Eynon is ineligible for relief because he “аdmitted he acted with a premeditated and deliberate intent to kill the victim.” We reject the People‘s argument because it mischaracterizes Eynon‘s factual admissions. Eynon admitted that he was guilty, on an unspecified theory, of a premeditated and deliberate murder. But he did not admit that he
Nothing in Eynon‘s record of conviсtion refutes the allegation in his
BACKGROUND
By information filed in January 2012, the People alleged that Eynon and one codefendant “did wilfully, unlawfully, and with deliberation, premeditation, and malice aforethought murder [the victim].” (
In 2013, Eynon pled guilty to first degree murder as charged in count 1 and was sentenced to the agreed term of 25 years to life in state prison. Pursuant to the parties’ agreemеnt and on request of the prosecution, all enhancement allegations were dismissed. On the plea agreement form, Eynon initialed the following statement: “I agree that I did the things that are stated in the charges that I am admitting.”
At the change of plea hearing, the trial court read aloud the charge as alleged in count 1, and Eynon pled guilty to committing first degree murder “willfully, unlawfully, and with deliberation, premeditation, and malice aforethought.” As a factual basis for the guilty plea, Eynоn admitted that he did “what Count 1 of th[e] Information says [he] did, when it says [he] did it.” The prosecutor added that as to Eynon the murder was a “felony murder, first-degree murder theory,” in that Eynon “was involved in a robbery, as you can see from the special circumstances.” The court then asked whether it should take a plea to the robbery-murder special circumstance allegation, but the prosecutor stated that such a plea was unnecessary because “that would take us beyоnd the 25 to life.” The prosecutor nonetheless wished to “note for the record” “that it was a felony murder with robbery.” Eynon then agreed, in
In 2019, after enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), Eynon filed a petition and supporting declaration seeking resentencing under
The People filed a response to the petition, arguing that Eynon was ineligible for relief because “as a verifiable factual matter” “prior determinations demonstrate petitioner was a direct aider and abettor with the intent to kill, and/or was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.” The People conceded that Eynon was not the actual killer. Eynon‘s counsel filed a reply addressing the constitutionality of
At a hearing at which Eynon appeared through counsel, the trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. As the basis for its ruling, the court adopted the People‘s argument that Eynon “was held to answer on the special circumstance at the prelim, which would have required at least a finding of a major participant with reсkless indifference.”
DISCUSSION
Eynon argues that the trial court erred by denying his
A. Murder Liability and Senate Bill 1437
We begin by summarizing both the law of murder as it existed when Eynon pled guilty and the ways it was changed by Senate Bill 1437. “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” (
Second, prior law provided that anyone who commits or attempts to commit a felony listed in
That was the state of the law in 2013, when Eynon pled guilty. In 2014, however, the Supreme Court held that “an aider and abettor may not be convicted of first degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 158-159 (Chiu), superseded by statute as stated in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959, fn. 3 (Lewis).) But the court allowed that defendants could still be convicted of second degree murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Chiu, at p. 166.)
A few years later, the law changed further with the enactment of Senate Bill 1437. “Senate Bill 1437 narrowed the scope of liability for first and second degree murder by altering the doctrines that had allowed convictions for those offenses in the absence of malice. Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1437 made that change by amending sections 188 and 189 to restrict the scope of first degree felony murder and to eliminate murder liability based on the natural and probable consequences doctrinе. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-3.)” (People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 917.)
Amended
B. Section 1170.95
Senate Bill 1437 created
Upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition, the trial court must (1) appoint counsel for the petitioner if requested, (2) allow the People to file a response to the petition and allow the petitioner to file a reply, and (3) determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for eligibility or entitlement to relief. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 960, 962-965.) In conducting the prima facie review, the court may consider the record of
“If the petitioner makes а prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” (
C. Analysis of Eynon‘s Petition
Eynon argues that the trial court erred by denying his petition without issuing an order to show cause. We agree.
The trial court denied the petition оn the ground that at the preliminary hearing Eynon was held to answer on the special circumstance allegation, “which would have required at least a finding of a major participant with reckless indifference.” We independently review the trial court‘s determination that the record of conviction refuted Eynon‘s allegation that he is eligible for relief under
Again, when conducting a prima facie review, the trial court must assume the truth of the petition‘s allegations and must not engage in factfinding, weigh the evidence, or reject the petition‘s allegations on the basis of adverse credibility determinations. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 971-972, 974.) If the record of conviction ““contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the petition““” (id. at p. 971), however, then the trial court is justified in rejecting them. Eynon alleged that he was not a major participant or did not act with reckless indifference to human life. The special circumstance allegation was to the contrary, and Eynon was held to answer on that allegation, but neither the allegation nor Eynon‘s being held to answer on it constitutes a ““fact[] refuting““” Eynon‘s allegation in his petition. (Ibid.) Being held to answer on an allegation does not constitute a factual finding that the allegation is true (and the allegation itself does not establish its own truth). Being held to answer does not even constitute a
As the People point out, however, “““a ruling or decision, itself correct in law, will not be disturbed on appeal merely because given for a wrong reason.““” (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976.) We therefore must affirm if the denial of Eynon‘s petition at the prima facie review stage was correct, even if the reason given by the trial court was erroneous.
According to the People, the denial was correct for the following reason: The record of conviction contains facts refuting Eynon‘s allegation that he is eligible for relief because “[a]s a factual basis for his plea, [Eynon] admitted he acted with a premeditated and deliberate intent to kill the victim.” We conclude that the argument lacks merit because it misunderstands the scope of Eynon‘s factual admissions.
At his change of plea hearing, Eynon pled guilty to committing first degree murder “willfully, unlawfully, and with deliberation, premeditation, and mаlice aforethought.” As a factual basis for the guilty plea, Eynon admitted that he did “what Count 1 of th[e] Information says [he] did, when it says [he] did it.” He further admitted “that this was a first-degree murder by virtue of being a felony murder[,] that being murder that occurred during the commission of a robbery.” Eynon made no other factual admissions. The question is whether his factual admissions support the People‘s argument or otherwise refute his allegation that he is eligible for relief. We conclude that they do not.
Rivera addressed a similar issue, and we agree with its analysis. Rivera concerned a
The court reasoned that “[t]he generic manner in which murder was charged ... did not limit the People to prosecuting [the defendant] on any particular theories.” (Rivera, supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at p. 233.) Rather, “it allowed the prosecution to proceed on any theory of murder.” (Ibid.) By pleading guilty, the defendant admitted every element of the charged offense, including malice. (Id. at p. 234.) But the defendant did not admit facts supporting liability on any particulаr theory, and the generic pleading encompassed theories—such as natural and probable consequences and felony murder—2
that did not require the defendant to have acted with malice. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the guilty plea did not constitute an admission that the defendant acted with malice. (Id. at p. 235 [“there is no basis on which to infer that [the defendant] admitted to acting with actual malice“].) Instead, it was an admission that a murder with malice was committed and that the defendant cоmmitted an act with the necessary intent to render him liable for that murder under then-existing law. The plea consequently did not refute the defendant‘s allegation that he was eligible for relief. (Id. at p. 234 [“given that the allegation that a murder was committed ‘willfully, unlawfully, and with malice aforethought’ is a generic charge permitting the prosecution to proceed on any theory of murder, we cannot conclude that by admitting to the murder as charged [the defendant] admitted that he acted with aсtual malice, not just that the element of malice was satisfied“].)
Contrary to the People‘s argument, Eynon‘s guilty plea and admission that he committed murder “with deliberation[ and] premeditation” do not change the analysis. Eynon admitted that a deliberate and premeditated murder was committed and that he committed an act with the necessary intent to incur liability for that murder, on some unspecified theory. But he did not admit that he acted with deliberation and premeditation, let alone that he acted with deliberate and premeditated intent to kill.
Nor dоes Eynon‘s guilty plea and admission that he committed first degree deliberate and premeditated murder exclude the possibility that his conviction was based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Eynon pled guilty in 2013, when the natural and probable consequences doctrine was a legally valid theory of liability for first degree premeditated murder. Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th 155, in which the Supreme Court held that defendants cannot be convicted of first degree premeditatеd murder on a natural and probable consequences theory, was decided in 2014.
Finally, Eynon‘s admission that the murder “was a first-degree murder by virtue of being a felony murder[,] that being murder that occurred during the commission of a robbery,” likewise does not refute his allegation that he is eligible for relief. When Eynon pled guilty, a defendant could be liable for first degree felony murder without being the actual killer, acting with intent to kill, or being a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with recklеss indifference to human life. The information alleged all of those things, but Eynon never admitted them—he did not admit the truth of the special circumstance allegation. He admitted only that the murder was a first degree murder because it was committed in the course of a robbery, and that he had committed an act with the necessary intent to render him liable for that murder under then-existing law. That is not enough for first degree felony murder liability after Senate Bill 1437, so his admission that the murder was a first degreе felony murder does not refute his allegation that he is eligible for relief—perhaps he did not act with intent to kill and was not a major participant in the robbery or did not act with reckless indifference to human life, as his
either of those theories—the prosecution could have relied on natural and probable consequence, felony murder, or both if the case had proceeded to trial. Eynon‘s guilty plea, his admission that he did what was charged in the murder count, and his admission that the murder was committed in the course of a robbery consequently did not include any factual admissions that refute his allegation that he is eligible for relief under
We conclude that Eynon‘s petition states a prima facie case for relief and that the record of conviction does not refute his allegation that he is eligible for relief. The trial court therefore erred by denying the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
DISPOSITION
The trial court‘s order denying Eynon‘s
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
MENETREZ
J.
We concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL
J.