People v. Secrease

Citation277 Cal.Rptr.3d 535,63 Cal.App.5th 231
Decision Date19 April 2021
Docket NumberA158342
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shannon SECREASE, Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Charles Carbone and Charles Carbone, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rene A. Chacon and Juliet B. Haley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

STREETER, Acting P. J. Shannon Secrease appeals from the summary denial of his resentencing petition, filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95,1 part of the statutory scheme enacted in 2018 by Senate Bill No. 1437. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2–4) (Senate Bill 1437). In 1998, a jury convicted Secrease of first degree murder and carjacking, finding true a special circumstance charge under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(L) that the murder was committed during a carjacking. (§ 215, subd. (a).) He received a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the conviction, but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to consider a discretionary reduction of the sentence to 25 years to life based on Secrease's youth at the time of the crime. (People v. Secrease (Feb. 21, 2001, A084777) [nonpub. opn.] (Secrease I ).) On remand, Secrease was again sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and we affirmed the sentence by unpublished opinion. ( People v. Secrease (Dec. 11, 2002, A097806) 2002 WL 31769077 [nonpub. opn.].)

In July 2019, represented by privately retained counsel, Secrease filed a verified section 1170.95 resentencing petition. The district attorney responded by filing a motion to deny the petition for failure to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for section 1170.95 resentencing relief, and Secrease filed a reply. After entertaining argument from counsel, the court agreed with the prosecution and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Secrease now appeals.

We are asked to decide whether a felony-murder special-circumstance finding by the jury that convicted Secrease in 1998 bars him from pleading a prima facie case for section 1170.95 resentencing relief as a matter of law. The issue is one that has divided the Courts of Appeal and is currently on review before our Supreme Court.2 As explained below, we agree with the opinions that have held a prior felony-murder special-circumstance finding does not bar section 1170.95 relief.

Because no court has ever determined whether the felony-murder special-circumstance finding rendered against Secrease meets the minimum standards of personal culpability enunciated 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 ), we hold that he is entitled to such a determination before his section 1170.95 petition may be denied summarily. We will therefore remand this case so the trial court can undertake a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review under those cases. If, upon review of the entire record of conviction, the court determines that the felony-murder special-circumstance finding rendered against Secrease in 1998 meets the standards of Banks and Clark , he will be barred from alleging prima facie entitlement to relief. If, on the other hand, the court concludes to the contrary and Secrease's felony-murder special-circumstance finding fails that test, an order to show cause must issue and the case must be set for an evidentiary hearing.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts

We take the following facts from our unpublished opinion in Secrease I :

"On September 15, 1996, a police officer found David Iano lying on the road near the Vallejo waterfront; he was bleeding profusely from a gunshot wound to the head. He died from the gunshot wound, which was fired from a range of two to twelve inches. The bullet entered the right front of his head and exited the left rear, with a slightly upwards trajectory. Earlier that afternoon the victim had left his pickup truck at his residence with a ‘for sale’ sign on it.

"On September 29, 1996, a San Pablo police officer found the victim's pickup truck parked across the street from Ericc Pickett's house. The engine was lying on the ground. There was blood spatter on the passenger floorboard. Pickett approached the officer and claimed that the vehicle belonged to him. He had the keys to the truck. A search of his residence led to the discovery of a manual on how to rebuild similar truck engines.[3 ] A criminalist later found human blood smears across the truck seat from left to right and inside the frame of the passenger door. There was human blood spatter on the ceiling of the truck cab.

"Defendant made two statements to the police regarding the crime. On the date that the victim's truck was discovered, the police contacted defendant at his sister's house in San Pablo. Defendant indicated that two weeks earlier he had given his friend Ericc Pickett a ride to Vallejo to purchase a pickup truck. Defendant's girlfriend[4 ] accompanied them. Defendant said he gave Pickett a ride to the gas station, dropped him off, and observed him go to a pay phone. Defendant stated that he and his girlfriend then drove back to Contra Costa County. According to defendant, a day or two later he went to Pickett's house and helped him remove the engine from the truck, which was parked across the street from Pickett's house. Defendant claimed that he did not see any blood in the truck. He returned to Pickett's house a couple of other times and the truck was still there.

"The next day, September 30, 1996, defendant was arrested and interviewed by a detective. Defendant stated that on September 15, 1996, he and the woman he referred to as Belinda Anderson drove to Vallejo; he gave Ericc Pickett a ride. Defendant said that Pickett was interested in a pickup truck that had a large engine he wished to remove. Defendant told the detective that Pickett indicated during the drive to Vallejo that after he looked at the truck, he would return and steal it and that if the owner got in his way, he was going to ‘whip his ass,’ or something to that effect. Defendant believed that Pickett was carrying a gun. Defendant indicated that while Pickett did not directly state that he had a firearm, his comments made defendant believe that he did. According to defendant, he parked the car at a Raley's shopping center across the street from the victim's home. Defendant said that ‘Anderson’ stayed in his car, while he walked with Pickett to the victim's house. Defendant told the detective that Pickett contacted the victim and arranged for a test drive. Defendant indicated that the victim drove, defendant sat in the middle, and Pickett sat by the passenger door. They drove toward south Vallejo, with Pickett giving directions. Defendant said that Pickett indicated that he had to go to the bathroom and told the victim to drive toward the water.

"According to defendant, as the victim slowed to make a U-turn, Pickett pulled out a gun and shot him once in the head. The victim collapsed into defendant's lap as the truck came to a stop. Defendant said that he asked Pickett why he shot the victim; Pickett replied, ‘Shut up or you'll get yours.’ Defendant stated that he then crawled over Pickett and got out of the car. Pickett dragged the victim out of the vehicle and left him on the road. Defendant claimed that Pickett yelled at him to get back into the truck. The floor of the truck was covered in blood and defendant had blood on his face, arms, and hands. Pickett also had blood on his body and clothes. Defendant said that he got back into the truck and they drove to the Raley's shopping center, where he retrieved his car, and then drove back to San Pablo with ‘Anderson.’ According to defendant, Pickett threatened him if he talked about the incident. Defendant told police that he would not have accompanied Pickett had he known what was going to happen; he thought Pickett was going to return later, on his own, to steal the truck.

"Defendant stated that he returned to Pickett's house on at least two occasions to assist in removing the engine from the pickup and to clean up the blood. He said that he spoke to Vivian Patton (his girlfriend's real name) in order to arrange for an alibi.

"Defendant made statements to two civilian witnesses, indicating that he had shot the victim. Ericc Pickett's former girlfriend, Renea Monique Webb, was at Pickett's house a few days after the shooting. Defendant was present. She asked them how they acquired the truck. Defendant told her the whole story that they went to Vallejo and stole a truck from a man and ‘Shannon stated that he shot the man. And I don't know who pushed him out [sic ] the truck.’ Webb directly asked defendant, ‘Did you shoot him?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ When first interviewed by the police, Webb indicated she did not know anything about the offense. She was once again Pickett's girlfriend at this time. She said she lent Pickett, or both him and defendant, money to buy a truck.[5 ] She testified that later, after Pickett was in custody, she called the police back, at her grandmother's urging, and told the truth. Although she testified that she never told the police where the gun was and did not know where it was, the police officer who interviewed her indicated that she stated that defendant said he buried it in his backyard. The police never located the murder weapon, although Pickett's mother gave them her .38 caliber firearm.

"Defendant's now former girlfriend, Vivian Patton, testified that she accompanied defendant and Ericc Pickett to Vallejo on September 15, 1996; she intended to visit her mother in Vallejo. During the drive, defendant sang along with a rap song that referred to killing someone and taking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 cases
  • People v. Price
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 29 Noviembre 2021
    ...stage of a resentencing proceeding under subdivision (c) of [section 1170.95 ]." (E.g., People v. Secrease (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 231, 255, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 535 ( Secrease ), rev. granted June 30, 2021, S268862.)13 Only if the resentencing court first determines the record of conviction does ......
  • People v. Strong
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 8 Agosto 2022
    ...determines that sufficient evidence supports the findings under the Banks and Clark standards. (See, e.g., People v. Secrease (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 231, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 535, review granted June 30, 2021, S268862.) And still other courts have concluded that such findings pose no bar because ......
  • People v. Strong
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 8 Agosto 2022
    ...determines that sufficient evidence supports the findings under the Banks and Clark standards. (See, e.g., People v. Secrease (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 231, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 535, review granted June 30, 2021, S268862.) And still other courts have concluded that such findings pose no bar because ......
  • People v. Dehuff
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 23 Abril 2021
    ...939, 958, 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 206 ; People v. Rivera (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 217, 276 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 ; People v. Secrease (Apr. 19, 2021, A158342) 63 Cal.App.5th 231, 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 535.) People v. Garcia (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 100, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 206, review granted February 10, 2020, S265692 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT