Error and/or relief
It was error to deny the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.6 on the grounds that he had previously filed a petition that was denied. Because the record demonstrates that the defendant is prima facie eligible for relief under case law that has emerged since his original petition was denied in 2020, we remand the matter to the trial court with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6(d).
First Holding:
Although the elements of collateral estoppel are satisfied, an equitable exception to that doctrine arises when there has been a significant change in the law since the initial ruling that warrants reexamination of the issue.
Authority:
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 454
Second Holding:
In 2018, the Legislature, through SB 1437, amended section 188 to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it applies to murder and to require, with certain exceptions under the felony murder rule, that a defendant act with malice to be convicted of murder. In 2021, through SB 775 the Legislature clarified that the amendments made by SB 1437 were also intended to eliminate any other theory of imputed-malice murder liability.
A defendant seeking relief under section 1172.6 must attest to the following: (1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of murder under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. (2) The petitioner was convicted of murder following a trial at which the petitioner could have been convicted of murder. (3) The petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder under current law.
Upon receipt of a facially sufficient petition, the trial court shall appoint counsel for petitioner if requested. The trial court then assesses whether the petitioner is prima facie eligible for relief. If the court determines that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder under current law.
Authority:
PEN 1172.6
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957
Third Holding:
In general, whether a prior finding will be given conclusive effect in a later proceeding is governed by the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. The doctrine is intended to protect litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy while promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.
Collateral estoppel has five elements.
First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding.
Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding.
Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding.
Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits.
Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. While satisfaction of these elements is necessary to invoke the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel, it is not always sufficient. Even if the elements are satisfied, the doctrine will not be applied if such application would not serve its underlying fundamental principles of promoting efficiency while ensuring fairness to the parties.
Authority:
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 451-452, 454
Fourth Holding:
In denying the defendant’s earlier petition, the court stated that at no time did the defense or prosecution argue the theory of natural and probable consequences at trial. The only homicide theory the parties argued to the jury] was that the defendant was an aider and abettor of a planned assassination. Three years after that denial of the petition, Lee held that, despite the prosecution (in Lee) arguing a single theory to the jury, the instructions were not so limited and permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty on a theory not argued by the prosecution.
The Lee court did not know if, based on the evidence, the jury might have convicted Lee on this latter theory, because it did not have the full record before it. The Lee court was therefore unwilling to conclude, based solely on the prosecution’s closing argument and summary of the evidence, that the jury necessarily convicted Lee as a provocateur as opposed to a nonprovocateur accomplice. The same reasoning applies in the instant case.
Authority:
People v. Lee (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1188
Fifth Holding:
Lee constitutes a significant development or clarification of the law. Because the trial court did not have the benefit of Lee when it issued its order, foreclosing a re-examination of the defendant’s arguments would be unfair.
Authority:
People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 454 [an exception to collateral estoppel is when there is a significant change in the law]