People v. Murillo
Decision Date | 01 September 2020 |
Docket Number | B297546 |
Citation | 54 Cal.App.5th 160,268 Cal.Rptr.3d 457 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose MURILLO, Defendant and Appellant. |
George L. Schraer, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mark Zahner (California District Attorneys Association); Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney (County of Riverside), Alan D. Tate, Managing Deputy District Attorney, Jesse Male, Deputy District Attorney; Jason Anderson, District Attorney (County of San Bernardino), and James R. Secord, Deputy District Attorney, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Jose Murillo challenges the trial court's denial of his petition under Penal Code section 1170.951 for resentencing on his murder conviction. A jury convicted Murillo in 1993 of murder on the basis of his participation in a burglary in which a cohort shot and killed a victim. The jury also found true a felony-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), concluding beyond a reasonable doubt either that Murillo urged his cohort to kill the victim, or that he was a major participant in the burglary who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court denied the petition because, on the basis of this finding, Murillo could still be convicted of murder and would be ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.2
Murillo contends that the special circumstance finding is no longer valid in light of our Supreme Court's decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 208, 351 P.3d 330 ( Banks ) and People v. Clark (2016) 63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 the meaning of "major participant" and "reckless indifference to human life." We affirm the trial court's order on two grounds: First, the proper procedure for collaterally challenging a special circumstance finding is a petition for habeas corpus, not a petition under section 1170.95. (See People v. Galvan (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1134, ––– Cal.Rptr.3d –––– ( Galvan ).) Second, the record of conviction shows as a matter of law that the special circumstance finding is valid even under Banks and Clark .
In a prior opinion in Murillo's direct appeal (People v. Murillo (July 28, 1994, B078813) [nonpub. opn.] (Murillo )), this court described the facts of this case, beginning with the prosecution's case:
which perforated the aorta, causing him to bleed to death.
The opinion went on to summarize the defense evidence:
A jury convicted Murillo of first degree murder (§ 187) and found true a felony murder special circumstance. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury also convicted him of one count of burglary (§ 459) and found true an allegation that a principal was armed in the commission of both the murder and the burglary. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced Murillo on the murder count to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The court suspended the sentence for the burglary pursuant to section 654.
In 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437), which abolished the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of murder, and limited the application of the felony murder doctrine. Under section 189, subdivision (e), Senate Bill No. 1437, a defendant is guilty of felony murder only if he: actually killed the victim; directly aided and abetted or solicited the killing, or otherwise acted with the intent to kill; or "was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life." (§ 189, subd. (e)(3); People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 247–248, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 253.) The legislation also enacted section 1170.95, which established a procedure for vacating murder convictions for defendants who would no longer be guilty of murder because of the new law and resentencing those who were so convicted. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, pp. 6675–6677.)
Murillo filed a petition for resentencing on March 29, 2019. The trial court summarily denied the petition on the ground that the jury's special circumstance finding rendered him ineligible for resentencing. (See §§ 189, subd. (e)(3), 1170.95, subd. (a)(3).) The court also denied the petition on the ground that Senate Bill No. 1437 violates several provisions of the California Constitution.3
Section 1170.95 allows a defendant serving a sentence for felony murder who would not be guilty of murder because of the new law to petition for resentencing. The statute requires a defendant to submit a petition affirming that he meets three criteria of eligibility: (1) He was charged with murder in a manner "that allowed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Caliber Paving Co. v. Rexford Indus. Realty & Mgmt., Inc.
-
People v. Harris
...treatment of such similarly situated defendants." ( Galvan , at pp. 1142-1143, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 193, accord, People v. Murillo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 160, 168, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 457, review granted Nov. 18, 2020, S264978 ["[b]y requiring a defendant to seek relief via habeas corpus, we avoid cr......
-
People v. Secrease
...added to CALJIC No. 8.80.1. (See Comment to CALJIC No. 8.80.1 (Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 revs.).)13 Accord, People v. Murillo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 160, 168, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 457, review granted November 18, 2020, S264978; People v. Nunez (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 78, 95–96, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 191,......
-
People v. Strong
...People v. Jones (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 474, 484, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 362, review granted Jan. 27, 2021, S265854; People v. Murillo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 160, 168, 268 Cal.Rptr.3d 457, review granted Nov. 18, 2020, S264978; People v. Galvan (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1134, 1142, 267 Cal.Rptr.3d 193, r......