In re Taylor
Decision Date | 19 April 2019 |
Docket Number | A155328 |
Citation | 34 Cal.App.5th 543,246 Cal.Rptr.3d 342 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | IN RE Anthony TAYLOR, on Habeas Corpus. |
Counsel for Petitioner: Philip M. Brooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal.
Counsel for Respondent: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, René A. Chacón, Deputy Attorney General.
Humes, P.J.Petitioner Anthony Taylor participated in an attempted robbery at a Livermore liquor store during which one of his accomplices shot to death a store employee, 70-year-old Kathryn Cary. In 1994, a jury convicted Taylor of first degree felony murder and found that the killing occurred in the commission of an attempted robbery that he aided and abetted "as a major participant" and "with reckless indifference to human life," a special circumstance requiring a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (d) ( section 190.2(d) ).1
In 2018, Taylor filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to have the special circumstance vacated under People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 208, 351 P.3d 330 ( Banks ) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 407, 372 P.3d 811 ( Clark ), which clarified "what it means for an aiding and abetting defendant to be a ‘major participant’ who acted with a ‘reckless indifference to human life.’ " ( In re Miller (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 960, 964, 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 ( Miller ).) Under this authority, a defendant acts with a reckless indifference to human life when he or she "knowingly creat[es] a ‘grave risk of death.’ " ( Banks , at p. 808, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 208, 351 P.3d 330.) We hold that evidence of a defendant’s actions after a murder betraying an indifference to the loss of life does not, standing alone, establish that the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death. Because there is no other evidence that Taylor had such an intent when he participated in the attempted robbery, we grant his petition to vacate the special circumstance.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The following facts about the murder are taken from this court’s unpublished opinion in Taylor’s direct appeal, People v. Davis (Mar. 14, 1996, A065553).
The jury found Taylor guilty of first degree murder as an aider and abettor of Davis in the attempted robbery and found true the allegation that Taylor or a principal was armed during the offense and aided and abetted the robbery as a major participant and with reckless indifference to human life. The jury also convicted Taylor of attempted robbery and found true that he or a principal was armed during the offense.2 He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the murder, plus a one-year term for the arming enhancement, and an 18-month sentence for the attempted robbery was imposed and stayed.
Taylor appealed, and this division affirmed the judgment in its 1996 unpublished opinion. Among other claims, he argued that insufficient evidence supported the special circumstance. The opinion rejected the claim as follows:
Ten years later, in July 2016, Taylor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, claiming that the special circumstance could not stand under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Banks . After the superior court denied the petition, Taylor petitioned for habeas relief in this court, again relying on Banks . We...
To continue reading
Request your trial- People v. Ramirez
-
People v. Munoz
...247 Cal.Rptr.3d 24 ; People v. Anthony , supra , 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1147–1153, 244 Cal.Rptr.3d 499 ; In re Taylor (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 543, 561–562, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 342.) We agree with the foregoing analysis.Attempting to circumvent this result, Munoz argues that the petition procedures......
-
People v. Price
...life without parole or death sentence. (See Scoggins , at pp. 677-683, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 467 P.3d 198 ; Taylor , supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 551-554, 556-561, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 342 ; Ramirez , supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at pp. 393-408, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 ; Bennett , supra, 26 Cal.App.5th at p......
-
People v. Ramirez
...help Gutierrez after Rios shot at the car or that Ramirez knew Gutierrez had been wounded by the gunfire. (See In re Taylor (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 543, 559, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 342 [defendant's failure to assist victim was not sufficient evidence of reckless indifference where "there is no evide......