People v. Secrease
Citation | 277 Cal.Rptr.3d 535,63 Cal.App.5th 231 |
Decision Date | 19 April 2021 |
Docket Number | A158342 |
Court | California 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In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the conviction, but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to consider a discretionary reduction of the sentence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 On remand, Secrease was again sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and we affirmed the sentence by unpublished opinion.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.
We take the following facts from our unpublished opinion in Secrease I :
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Price
...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
...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
...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
...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 ......