People v. Hall CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial judge
- Shahla S. Sabet (retired judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), William S. Dato, Patricia Guerrero
Analysis
The trial court denied Hall's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, ruling that his voluntary manslaughter conviction was not eligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that the statute does not apply to manslaughter convictions and declining to reconsider prior precedent.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95“The trial court correctly determined Hall was not eligible for relief under section 1170.95.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the plain language of the statute, which limits eligibility to those convicted of first or second-degree murder. The court properly relied on its own binding precedent (People v. Turner) and other published Court of Appeal decisions that unanimously rejected the argument that manslaughter convictions are eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court's refusal to reconsider its prior decision is consistent with the law of the case doctrine and the hierarchy of appellate authority. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — Section 1170.95 does not provide a mechanism for persons who pleaded guilty to manslaughter to avoid the potential of conviction for murder.
- relied: People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719 — Senate Bill No. 1437 was enacted to amend the felony murder rule and natural and probable consequences doctrine to ensure murder liability is not imposed on persons who are not the actual killer, did not act with intent to kill, or were not major participants acting with reckless indifference.
- relied: People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557 — Manslaughter convictions are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
- relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914 — Manslaughter convictions are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
- relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — Manslaughter convictions are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
- relied: People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 — Manslaughter convictions are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
- relied: People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884 — Manslaughter convictions are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the plain language of Penal Code section 1170.95, which explicitly limits eligibility to murder convictions, and relies on a consistent line of published Court of Appeal precedent. The court appropriately declined to reconsider its prior decision in People v. Turner, adhering to the law of the case doctrine.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Bernardino County Superior Court denied Michael Hall's Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing because his conviction was for voluntary manslaughter (by plea) rather than murder, and the statute as then written covered only murder convictions. The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting Hall's statutory-construction and equal protection arguments by following its own prior decision in People v. Turner and the unanimous line of published Court of Appeal authority holding manslaughter convictions ineligible.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.95 resentencing petition on the ground that a voluntary manslaughter conviction entered by plea is not eligible for relief under the statute“The trial court correctly determined Hall was not eligible for relief under section 1170.95.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard of review, but the question (statutory construction and equal protection) is a pure question of law effectively reviewed de novo. As of August 2021, section 1170.95 by its terms applied only to persons convicted of first or second degree murder; every published Court of Appeal decision (Turner, Cervantes, Flores, Sanchez, Paige, Harris) had held manslaughter convictions ineligible and rejected the equal protection challenge, and the court's reliance on that unanimous authority was correct under the law then in effect. Senate Bill No. 775 later extended relief to manslaughter pleas effective January 1, 2022, but that amendment postdates this opinion and does not make the ruling erroneous when made. |
Rejection of equal protection challenge to excluding manslaughter convictions from section 1170.95 relief“Hall claims there is an ambiguity in the statute and there should be an implied inclusion for persons convicted of manslaughter and to find otherwise would not only be absurd but would deny equal protection.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not independently analyze the equal protection claim but adopted the reasoning of Turner and the other cited published decisions, which held that persons convicted of murder and manslaughter are not similarly situated and that the Legislature had a rational basis for limiting relief to murder convictions. That analysis was consistent with all published authority at the time, and nothing in the opinion suggests misapplication of equal protection principles. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — Section 1170.95 does not provide relief to defendants convicted of voluntary manslaughter by plea, and excluding them does not violate equal protection
- relied: People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884 — Section 1170.95 relief is limited to murder convictions and does not extend to manslaughter
- relied: People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 — Manslaughter convictions are ineligible for section 1170.95 resentencing
- relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to defendants who pleaded guilty to manslaughter
- relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — Defendants convicted of manslaughter are not eligible for relief under section 1170.95
- relied: People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557 — Section 1170.95 excludes manslaughter convictions and the exclusion survives equal protection scrutiny (review granted)
- relied: People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719 — Describes the purpose of Senate Bill No. 1437 to limit murder liability under felony murder and natural and probable consequences theories
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly identified that section 1170.95, as then written, applied only to murder convictions and that every published appellate decision had rejected the identical statutory and equal protection arguments, so following Turner was appropriate. The opinion is thin because it incorporates Turner's reasoning by reference rather than restating it and does not articulate a standard of review, but the result was correct under the law in effect in August 2021.
Opinion
Filed 8/18/21 P. v. Hall CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D078174
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV1202970)
MICHAEL ANDRE HALL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court San Bernardino County, Shahla S. Sabet, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos, Seth Friedman, and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, Michael Hall and a co-defendant were charged with three counts of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and multiple other felonies. Hall entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) as a lesser offense of murder and one count of robbery (§ 211). Hall also admitted the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. In September 2019, Hall filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. Although the statutory mechanism for resentencing is predicated on a conviction for murder, Hall contended his manslaughter conviction should also qualify. The trial court denied the petition on the basis that the manslaughter conviction was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. Hall appeals contending proper statutory construction of section 1170.95 should also allow petitions for resentencing of manslaughter convictions based on guilty pleas to avoid murder convictions that would violate Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) if tried today. He also contends that denying him access to the resentencing system for murder cases would deny him equal protection. Hall acknowledges that all of the published opinions of the Courts of Appeal have rejected both of his arguments. He contends all of the opinions were wrongly decided, including the opinion from this court.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 As we will discuss below, we are satisfied the appellate decisions rejecting Hall’s arguments were correct. We will decline to reconsider our previous opinions and will affirm the denial of Hall’s petition.2 DISCUSSION Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) was enacted 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).)” (People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.) Section 1170.95 was enacted to provide a mechanism for those previously convicted of first or second-degree murder on a now improper theory of liability, to seek resentencing of their murder convictions where appropriate. The section does not provide a mechanism for persons who pleaded guilty to manslaughter to avoid the potential of conviction for murder. Hall claims there is an ambiguity in the statute and there should be an implied inclusion for persons convicted of manslaughter and to find otherwise would not only be absurd but would deny equal protection. As we have noted, Hall acknowledges the unanimous rejection of the arguments he now makes. He dismisses the appellate opinions as wrongly decided. The following cases have rejected the current arguments: People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557, 565-572, review granted April 21, 2021, S267529; People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 916, 918-921; People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194, 197-198; People v. Turner 2 The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the issue in this appeal. We will omit the traditional statement of facts. 3 (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 435-439 (Turner); People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 992-997; People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884, 887-888. In Turner, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pages 435-439, this court considered the same basic arguments as are made in this case. We rejected those arguments in a careful and thorough decision. We decline to revisit the analysis in Turner. Instead, we will follow our decision in Turner and will reject Hall’s arguments for the reasons expressed in that opinion. The trial court correctly determined Hall was not eligible for relief under section 1170.95. DISPOSITION The order denying Hall’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
GUERRERO, J.