People v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 26 July 2021
• Docket Number: S260598
• Citation: 11 Cal.5th 952,491 P.3d 309,281 Cal.Rptr.3d 521
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vince E. LEWIS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

11 Cal.5th 952

491 P.3d 309

281 Cal.Rptr.3d 521

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Vince E. LEWIS, Defendant and Appellant.

S260598

Supreme Court of California.

July 26, 2021

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing August 25, 2021

Robert D. Bacon, Oakland, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Sara Ross, Stephen Dunkle, Santa Barbara, and John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kate Chatfield, San Francisco, for Senator Nancy Skinner and The Justice Collaborative Institute as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Sean Riordan, Summer Lacey, Los Angeles, and David Loy for American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties as Amici Curie on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, Idan Ivri and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Mark Zahner and Nicole C. Rooney, Deputy District Attorney (San Diego), for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Groban, J.

Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill 1437) eliminated natural and probable consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting, and limited the scope of the felony murder rule. ( Pen. Code, §§ 188, subd. (a)(3), 189, subd. (e), as amended by Senate Bill 1437.) Senate Bill 1437 also added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code,¹ which creates a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief.

In this case, we are asked to decide two questions specific to section 1170.95, subdivision (c) : (1) may superior courts consider the record of conviction in determining whether a defendant has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief?; and (2) when does the right to appointed counsel arise?

Here, the trial court considered the record of conviction without appointing counsel and summarily denied defendant Vince E. Lewis's section 1170.95 petition. The Court of Appeal concluded this procedure was proper. Contrary to the Court of Appeal's decision, we conclude that the statutory language and legislative intent of section 1170.95 make clear that petitioners are entitled to the appointment of counsel upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition (see § 1170.95, subds. (b), (c) ) and that only after the appointment of counsel and the opportunity for briefing may the superior court consider the record of conviction to determine whether "the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief." ( § 1170.95, subd. (c).)

Nevertheless, we conclude that the deprivation of Lewis's right to counsel under subdivision (c) of section 1170.95 was state law error only, tested for prejudice under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 299 P.2d 243 ( Watson ). The parties dispute whether the trial court's failure to appoint counsel can be deemed harmless on this record. We decline to reach that issue. We instead reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand the cause to the Court of Appeal for an evaluation of prejudice under Watson in the first instance.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural History

In 2012, defendant Lewis, along with codefendants Ariana Coronel and Mirian Herrera, were convicted of killing fellow Easy Riders gang member Darsy Noriega for her apparent disloyalty to their gang.² At their trial, former codefendant Amy Aleman testified that Noriega was ordered to attend a gang meeting, which had been called by Lewis, on the night of her death. During the meeting, Lewis told Aleman, Coronel, Herrera, and Noriega to accompany him to buy beer, which they did. After leaving the liquor store, Lewis drove around, eventually parking on a street near an alley. After Lewis parked, Aleman, Herrera, and Noriega got out of the car and walked down the alley; Lewis and Coronel remained in the car. In the alley, Herrera shot Noriega to death; Noriega was hit by approximately ten bullets. The prosecution's gang expert offered testimony that "in general a gang meeting is required to decide whether a member needs to be disciplined and only one person in the gang, the ‘shot caller,’ can call such a meeting." ( Lewis I , supra , B241236.)

The jury convicted Lewis, Coronel, and Herrera of Noriega's first degree murder. ( § 187, subd. (a).) The jury further found that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang ( § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(c) ) and that Herrera personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death ( § 12022.53, subd. (d) ). Lewis was sentenced to 25 years to life.

Lewis, Coronel, and Herrera appealed. ( Lewis I , supra , B241236.) While their appeal was pending, we decided People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972 ( Chiu ). Chiu "held that natural and probable consequences liability cannot extend to first degree premeditated murder because punishing someone for first degree premeditated murder when that person did not actually perpetrate or intend the killing is inconsistent with ‘reasonable concepts of culpability.’ " ( People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 838, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 814, 477 P.3d 539, quoting Chiu , at p. 165, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972 ; see generally Chiu , at pp. 165–166, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972.)³ Chiu further explained, "When a trial court instructs a jury on two theories of guilt, one of which was legally correct and one legally incorrect, reversal is required unless there is a basis in the record to find that the verdict was based on a valid ground." ( Chiu, at p. 167, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972.) Stated differently, "[d]efendant's first degree murder conviction must be reversed unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the legally valid theory that defendant directly aided and abetted the premeditated murder." ( Ibid . )

In relevant part, the Lewis I court agreed with Lewis that, under Chiu , the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could convict him of Noriega's murder if he aided Herrera in an assault on Noriega with force likely to produce great bodily injury and that murder was the natural and probable consequence of the assault. ( Lewis I , supra , B241236.) However, quoting Chiu , supra , 59 Cal.4th at page 167, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 325 P.3d 972, the Lewis I court concluded the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the record showed that Lewis directly aided and abetted Herrera in the deliberate, premeditated murder of Noriega. ( Ibid . )

We denied Lewis's petition for review of Lewis I .

B. Senate Bill 1437

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1437 "to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) In addition to substantively amending sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code, Senate Bill 1437 added section 1170.95, which provides a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. (See Gentile , supra , 10 Cal.5th at p. 843, 272 Cal.Rptr.3d 814, 477 P.3d 539.)

Pursuant to section 1170.95, an offender must file a petition in the sentencing court averring that: "(1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine[;] [¶] (2) The petitioner was convicted of first degree or second degree murder following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder[;] [¶] [and] (3) The petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019." ( § 1170.95, subds. (a)(1)–(3) ; see also § 1170.95 subd. (b)(1)(A).) Additionally, the petition shall state "[w]hether the petitioner requests the appointment of counsel." ( § 1170.95, subd. (b)(1)(C).) If a petition fails to comply with subdivision (b)(1), "the court may deny the petition without prejudice to the filing of another petition ...." ( § 1170.95, subd. (b)(2).)

Where the petition complies with subdivision (b)’s three requirements, then the court proceeds to subdivision (c) to assess whether the petitioner has made "a prima facie showing" for relief. ( § 1170.95, subd. (c).)

If the trial court determines that a prima facie showing for relief has been made, the trial court issues an order to show cause, and then must hold a hearing "to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and to recall the sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts in the same manner as if the petitioner had not ... previously been sentenced, provided that the new sentence, if any, is not greater than the initial sentence." ( § 1170.95, subd. (d)(1).) "The prosecutor and the petitioner may rely on the record of conviction or offer new or additional evidence to meet their respective burdens." ( § 1170.95, subd. (d)(3).) At the hearing stage, "the burden of proof shall be on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is ineligible for resentencing." ( § 1170.95, subd. (d)(3).)

C. Section 1170.95 Petition

On January 7, 2019, Lewis filed a...