People v. Law

Filed 5/13/20 (unmodified opn. attached)
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, E072845
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF100589)
TERRELL LAW,
Defendant and Appellant. The County of Riverside
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
AND DENYING PETITION FOR
REHEARING
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
_______________________________________
THE COURT
We deny appellant Terrell Law’s petition for rehearing and modify the opinion filed in
this matter on April 27, 2020 by inserting the following language to part II.B, section 2, at the
top of page 19, in between the parenthetical ending with “crime only” and the sentence “Law’s
conduct is clearly distinguishable”:
(See, e.g., In re Miller, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 965 [defendant played the role
of “spotter” who would select the robbery target and was not at the scene of the
robbery/murder]; In re Bennett (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1002, 1019 [defendant was
involved in planning the robbery but was not at the scene of the murder];
Ramirez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 404 [defendant acted as getaway driver and
was not at the scene of the murder]; In re Taylor (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 543, 559
[same].)
Except for this modification, which does not affect the judgment, the opinion remains
unchanged.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
SLOUGH
J.
We concur:
1
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
2
Filed 4/27/20; Certified for publication 5/5/20 (order attached) (unmodified version)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E072845
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF100589)
TERRELL LAW, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Arielle Bases, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Meredith S. White and Robin
Urbanski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In 2001, appellant Terrell Law and his codefendant Brett May committed a home
invasion robbery, during which one of them shot and killed one of the residents. In 2006,
Law and May were tried jointly before two separately empaneled juries who found them
both guilty of first degree felony murder with the special circumstance described in Penal
1
Code section 190.2, subdivisions (a)(17)(A) and (d). Though Law’s jury found that he
was not the shooter, in finding the special circumstance allegations true, they concluded
he was “a major participant” in the underlying robbery and acted “with reckless
indifference to human life.” (§ 190.2, subd. (d).)2
In 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB
1437), which, among other things, amended the definition of felony murder in section
189. Under the new law, an accomplice to the underlying felony who was not the actual
killer cannot be convicted of felony murder unless they aided in the murder with the
intent to kill or were “a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless
indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.” (§ 189.) The
legislation also added section 1170.95, which establishes a procedure for vacating murder
convictions predating the amendment that could not be sustained under the new definition
of felony murder. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.)
1We took judicial notice of the appellate record of Law and May’s criminal trial,
case No. E041967. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
2 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
2
In this appeal, Law challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his section
1170.95 petition to vacate his murder conviction. He argues the trial court erred by
reviewing his record of conviction and determining the jury’s true finding on the special
circumstance rendered him ineligible for relief. According to Law, two California
Supreme Court cases decided after he was convicted—People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th
788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark)—clarified what “major
participant” and “reckless indifference to human life” mean for purposes of section 190.2,
subdivision (d) and therefore require us to conclude his special circumstance finding was
not supported by sufficient evidence. As we explain, it is proper for a trial court to review
the record of conviction when determining whether a section 1170.95 petitioner has
stated a prima facie claim for relief. Additionally, even under the principles articulated in
Banks and Clark after Law was convicted, he undoubtedly qualifies as a major participant
who acted with reckless indifference to human life, a conclusion that renders him
ineligible for relief under section 1170.95. We therefore affirm the order denying his
petition.
I
FACTS
We take the facts from the unpublished opinion we issued in 2008, affirming
Law’s and May’s convictions in case No. E041967. (People v. Lewis (2020) 43
Cal.App.5th 1128, 1134, 1138 (Lewis), review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598 [in
3
determining the sufficiency of a section 1170.95 petition, the court may review the record
of conviction, which includes the opinion in a defendant’s direct appeal].)
Around 4:00 a.m. on May 1, 2001, Law and May went to the victim’s house and
waited until one of his roommates left for work. Armed with guns and wearing ski masks,
they entered the house and encountered R. (another roommate) sleeping on the couch.
They woke R. up and ordered him to the floor. While the first defendant guarded R., the
second defendant went to the victim’s bedroom to wake him up. The victim owned a gun,
but the second defendant grabbed it before he could get to it. As this was happening, the
first defendant was ordering R. to hand over his jewelry.
When the second defendant returned to the living room with the victim, he was
holding two guns, his and the victim’s. He ordered the victim to the floor, then began
searching the rest of the house for money and marijuana while the first defendant stood
guard in the living room. The second defendant found the safe in the victim’s bedroom
closet and came back to retrieve the victim. The victim refused to open the safe, so the
first defendant brought R. into the room and ordered him to open it. When R. was unable
to do so, the defendants ordered him to lie on the floor in the hallway.
Frustrated with the victim’s resistance, the second defendant (the one holding two
guns) pistol whipped the victim. The victim then ran into the bedroom of another
roommate, A., turned on the lights, and screamed that defendants were “tripping.” A.
could tell the victim was panicked and scared. At that point, both defendants entered A.’s
room, brandishing their guns. The second defendant tried to hit the victim with one of his
4
guns but dropped it when the victim blocked the blow with his arm. The second
defendant picked up the gun, cursed at the victim, and shot him in the head. According to
A., the defendants fled after the gunshot, and he ran to a neighbor’s house to call 911.
Law’s jury convicted him of first degree felony murder with the special
circumstance described in section 190.2, subdivisions (a)(17)(A) and (d); one count of
robbery; one count of attempted robbery; and two counts of assault with a firearm. As to
the robbery and attempted robbery, they found true the allegation that a principal was
armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)), but found not true the allegation that Law
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the robbery (§ 12022.53, subd.
(d)). May’s jury convicted him of first degree felony murder with the same special
circumstance as Law; one count of attempted robbery; and two counts of assault with a
firearm. They found true the allegations that a principal was armed with a firearm during
the attempted robbery and that May personally and intentionally used a firearm during
the murder and attempted robbery. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) Under these verdicts, neither
jury found beyond a reasonable doubt which defendant was the actual killer. Law’s jury
concluded the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the
killer, and May’s jury found he used a gun during the murder, which is not the same as
finding he discharged a gun during the murder. In other words, the juries did not make a
specific determination as to who shot the victim, which is not surprising given that both
defendants wore ski masks that covered their faces during the entire incident. The trial
5
court sentenced Law to six years in prison plus life without the possibility of parole and
sentenced May to 19 years 4 months in prison plus life without the possibility of parole.
In 2008, in case No. E041967, we affirmed defendants’ convictions. In that
appeal, neither defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to support the special
circumstances robbery-murder finding. In 2015 and 2016, the California Supreme Court
decided Banks and Clark, respectively, which discuss when section 190.2 authorizes a
special circumstance life without parole sentence for a felony-murder defendant
convicted as an aider and abettor. (Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 794; Clark, supra, 63
Cal.4th at pp. 609-610.) Significantly, our high court clarified that participation in an
armed robbery, on its own, is insufficient to support a finding that the defendant acted
with reckless indifference to human life. “A sentencing body must examine the
defendant’s personal role in the crimes leading to the victim’s death and weigh the
defendant’s individual responsibility for the loss of life, not just his or her vicarious
responsibility for the underlying crime.” (Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 801.) “The
defendant must be aware of and willingly involved in the violent manner in which the
particular offense is committed,” thereby “demonstrating reckless indifference to the
significant risk of death his or her actions create.” (Ibid., italics added.)
In 2018, Law filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking to have his finding
on special circumstances vacated for insufficient evidence under Banks and Clark. We
summarily denied his petition.
6
In January 2019, after SB 1437 went into effect, Law filed a section 1170.95
petition to vacate his 2006 murder conviction. He alleged that he had been convicted of
first degree murder under a felony murder theory and that he could not be so convicted
under the new definition of felony murder because “I was not a major participant in the
felony [and/or] I did not act with reckless indifference to human life during the course of
the . . . felony.” He requested counsel. He also erroneously checked the box stating that
he was entitled to resentencing without a hearing because “There has been a prior
determination by a court or jury that I was not a major participant and/or did not act with
reckless indifference to human life under Penal Code § 190.2(d).” The People filed an
opposition to Law’s petition, arguing SB 1437 is unconstitutional and, in any event, he is
not entitled to relief because the jury found he was a major participant in the robbery who
acted with reckless indifference to human life, as defined in section 190.2, subdivision
(d). They attached our 2008 opinion deciding Law’s direct appeal, as well as the jury
instructions on the special circumstance allegations from his trial.
On April 12, 2019, the trial court denied Law’s petition. It explained that it had
reviewed its own records and determined that the jury, having been properly instructed on
special circumstance robbery-murder, found that he had been a major participant in the
robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Such a finding prevented him
from making the required showing to obtain relief under section 1170.95. Law filed a
timely appeal.
7
II
ANALYSIS
Law makes three arguments on appeal. First, he argues the trial court had no
discretion to review the record of conviction when determining whether he had stated a
prima facie claim for relief but was limited to the allegations in his petition. Second, he
argues that even if the court could look beyond his petition to the record of conviction,
the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he was a major participant who acted
with reckless indifference to human life under Banks and Clark. Finally, he argues the
court erred by not appointing him counsel to aid him in responding to the People’s
opposition and convincing the court he had stated a prima facie claim for relief. As we
will explain, his first two arguments are without merit and his third fails because, whether
or not he was entitled to counsel at this stage of the petitioning process, counsel could not
have altered the result of the proceedings. The trial evidence amply supports the jury’s
true finding under section 190.2, subdivision (d).
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
We review de novo questions of statutory construction. (California Building
Industry Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1032, 1041.) “Our
primary task ‘in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent, giving
effect to the law’s purpose. [Citation.] We consider first the words of a statute, as the
most reliable indicator of legislative intent.’” (Ibid.)
8
Section 1170.95 establishes the following procedure for processing petitions for
relief. Section 1170.95 subdivision (a) provides that a person convicted of felony murder
or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory may petition the trial court
to have his or her murder conviction vacated and be resentenced on any remaining counts
if the following conditions are met: (1) A charging document 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 or second degree murder following a trial or an accepted plea; and (3)
The petitioner could “not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of
changes to Section[s] 188 or 189” made by SB 1437. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a); see also
Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 1136.)
Section 1170.95, subdivision (b) states that the petition must include: a declaration
from the petitioner that he or she is eligible for relief under the statute, the superior
court’s case number and year of conviction, and a statement as to whether the petitioner
requests appointment of counsel. (§ 1170.95, subd. (b)(1).) If any of the required
information is missing and cannot “readily [be] ascertained by the court, the court may
deny the petition without prejudice to the filing of another petition.” (§ 1170.95, subd.
(b)(2).)
Section 1170.95, subdivision (c) sets forth the trial court’s responsibilities once a
complete petition has been filed: “The court shall review the petition and determine if the
petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of
9
this section. If the petitioner has requested counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to
represent the petitioner. The prosecutor shall file and serve a response within 60 days of
service of the petition and the petitioner may file and serve a reply within 30 days after
the prosecutor response is served. . . . If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that
he or she is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” (§ 1170.95,
subd. (c).)
If the court issues an order to show cause, it must hold a hearing to determine
whether to vacate the murder conviction. (§ 1170.95, subd. (d).) At that hearing, the
prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is
ineligible for resentencing. (§ 1170.95, subd. (d)(3).) The prosecutor and petitioner “may
rely on the record of conviction or offer new or additional evidence to meet their
respective burdens.” (Ibid.)
In short, a section 1170.95 petitioner must first make a prima facie case for relief,
and if they are able to do so, the trial court must issue an order to show cause and hold a
hearing to determine whether to vacate the murder conviction and recall the sentence.
(See, e.g., People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 328 (Verdugo), review granted
Mar. 18, 2020, S260493.) “‘A prima facie showing is one that is sufficient to support the
position of the party in question.’” (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 1137, quoting
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851.)
10
B. Analysis
1. The court properly reviewed the record of conviction
Two opinions, Lewis and Verdugo, have already rejected the argument that a trial
court is limited to the allegations in the petition when determining whether the petitioner
has stated a prima facie claim for relief under section 1170.95.
In Lewis, the defendant argued “that the court could look no further than his
petition in evaluating his prima facie showing and the court therefore erred when it
considered [the] opinion in his direct appeal.” (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 1137.)
In Verdugo, the defendant argued “the superior court lacked jurisdiction to deny his
section 1170.95 petition on the merits” based on its review of the record of conviction
“without first appointing counsel and allowing the prosecutor and appointed counsel to
brief the issue of his entitlement to relief.” (Verdugo, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 323.)
Analogizing to the well-established and similar resentencing procedures under
Propositions 36 and 47, the Lewis and Verdugo courts rejected these arguments,
concluding a trial court may consider the record of the petitioner’s conviction, including
documents in the court’s own file and the appellate opinion resolving the defendant’s
direct appeal. (Lewis, at pp. 1137-1138; Verdugo, at pp. 329-330.)
The Lewis court reasoned: “Allowing the trial court to consider its file and the
record of conviction is also sound policy. As a respected commentator has explained: ‘It
would be a gross misuse of judicial resources to require the issuance of an order to show
cause or even appointment of counsel based solely on the allegations of the petition,
11
which frequently are erroneous, when even a cursory review of the court file would show
as a matter of law that the petitioner is not eligible for relief. For example, if the petition
contains sufficient summary allegations that would entitle the petitioner to relief, but a
review of the court file shows the petitioner was convicted of murder without instruction
or argument based on the felony murder rule or [the natural and probable consequences
doctrine], . . . it would be entirely appropriate to summarily deny the petition based on
petitioner’s failure to establish even a prima facie basis of eligibility for resentencing.’
(Couzens et al., Sentencing Cal. Crimes, [(The Rutter Group 2019)], ¶ 23:51(H)(1),
pp. 23-150 to 23-151.)” (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 1138.) We agree with this
view and therefore conclude the court did not err by looking to the record of conviction
and reviewing the attachments to the People’s opposition (i.e., our opinion in Law’s
direct appeal or the jury instructions from his trial) in evaluating his petition.
2. The court properly denied Law’s petition
Next, Law argues that even if the trial court could look beyond his petition to the
record of conviction, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he was a major
participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life under Banks and Clark.
The People argue that Law falls squarely into the definition of a major participant who
acted with reckless indifference to human life. Because Law was convicted before Banks
and Clark, he is correct that he is entitled to a determination of whether the trial evidence
is sufficient to support the section 190.2 special circumstances finding under the
12
principles articulated in those cases. However, we agree with the People that the answer
to that inquiry is yes.3
Whether there is sufficient evidence that Law was a major participant in the
robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life is a question we can decide
on appeal. “A [d]efendant’s claim that the evidence presented against him failed to
support [a] robbery-murder special circumstance [finding made prior to Banks and Clark]
. . . is not a ‘routine’ claim of insufficient evidence.” (In re Miller (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th
960, 979-980.) The “claim does not require resolution of disputed facts; the facts are a
given.” (Id. at p. 980.)
Section 190.2 sets forth the special circumstances under which murderers and
accomplices can by punished by death or life without possibility of parole. One such
circumstance is when a defendant is found guilty of first degree murder committed while
they were engaged in, or were an accomplice in, the commission or attempted
commission of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A).) However, as explained above, a
death resulting during the commission of a robbery (or any other felony enumerated in
§ 189) is insufficient, on its own, to establish a felony-murder special circumstance for
those defendants, like Law, who were not determined to be the actual killer. Such
defendants can only be guilty of special circumstance felony-murder if they aid in the
3 The fact we previously summarily denied Law’s habeas petition arguing the
evidence was insufficient to support the special circumstances finding under Banks and
Clark is irrelevant. “[T]he summary denial of a habeas corpus petition does not establish
law of the case and does not have a res judicata effect in future proceedings.” (Gomez v.
Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 293, 305, fn. 6.)
13
murder with the intent to kill (§ 190.2, subd. (c)), or, lacking intent to kill, aid in the
felony “with reckless indifference to human life and as a major participant.” (Id., subd.
(d).)
Section 190.2, subdivision (d) was enacted in 1990 to bring state law into
conformity with prevailing Eighth Amendment doctrine, as set out in the United States
Supreme Court’s decision Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137. (Banks, supra, 61
Cal.4th at p. 798.) “In Tison, two brothers aided an escape by bringing guns into a prison
and arming two murderers, one of whom they knew had killed in the course of a previous
escape attempt. After the breakout, one of the brothers flagged down a passing car, and
both fully participated in kidnapping and robbing the vehicle’s occupants. Both then
stood by and watched as those people were killed. The brothers made no attempt to assist
the victims before, during, or after the shooting, but instead chose to assist the killers in
their continuing criminal endeavors. [Citation.] The Supreme Court held the brothers
could be sentenced to death despite the fact they had not actually committed the killings
themselves or intended to kill, stating: ‘[R]eckless disregard for human life implicit in
knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents
a highly culpable mental state, a mental state that may be taken into account in making a
capital sentencing judgment when that conduct causes its natural, though also not
inevitable, lethal result. [¶] The [brothers’] own personal involvement in the crimes was
not minor, but rather, . . . “substantial.” Far from merely sitting in a car away from the
actual scene of the murders acting as the getaway driver to a robbery, each . . . was
14
actively involved in every element of the kidnap[p]ing-robbery and was physically
present during the entire sequence of criminal activity culminating in the murder[s] . . .
and the subsequent flight. The Tisons’ high level of participation in these crimes . . .
implicates them in the resulting deaths.’” (In re Ramirez (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 384, 393-
394 (Ramirez), quoting Tison, at pp. 157-158.)
“The Tison court pointed to the defendant in Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S.
782 (Enmund) as an example of a nonkiller convicted of murder under the felony-murder
rule for whom the death penalty was unconstitutionally disproportionate. Enmund was
the driver of the getaway car in an armed robbery of a dwelling whose occupants were
killed by Enmund’s accomplices when they resisted. [Citation.] In deciding the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids imposition of the death penalty ‘on
one such as Enmund’ . . . , the high court emphasized that the focus had to be on the
culpability of Enmund himself, and not on those who committed the robbery and shot the
victims [citation]. ‘Enmund himself did not kill or attempt to kill; and, . . . the record . . .
does not warrant a finding that Enmund had any intention of participating in or
facilitating a murder. . . . [T]hus his culpability is plainly different from that of the
robbers who killed; yet the State treated them alike and attributed to Enmund the
culpability of those who killed the [victims]. This was impermissible under the Eighth
Amendment.’” (Ramirez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 394.)
In Banks, the California Supreme Court described what is often referred to as the
Tison-Enmund spectrum. “At one extreme” are people like Enmund—“the minor actor in
15
an armed robbery, not on the scene, who neither intended to kill nor was found to have
had any culpable mental state.” (Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 800.) “At the other
extreme [are] actual killers and those who attempted or intended to kill.” (Ibid.) Section
190.2, subdivision (d) covers those people who fall “into neither of these neat
categories”—people like the Tison brothers, who were major participants in the
underlying felony and acted with a reckless indifference to human life. (Ibid.)
Our high court articulated several factors intended to aid in determining whether a
defendant falls into this middle category, such that section 190.2, subdivision (d) would
apply to them. “What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that
led to one or more deaths? What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal
weapons? What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the
nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other
participants? Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to
facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inaction play a
particular role in the death? What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?”
(Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 803, italics added.) “No one of these considerations is
necessary, nor is any one of them necessarily sufficient.” (Ibid.)
The defendant in Banks was convicted of first degree murder with a felony-murder
special circumstance based on his having acted as the getaway driver for an armed
robbery in which his codefendant Banks and others participated, and in which Banks shot
and killed one of the robbery victims while escaping. (Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p.796-
16
797.) Considering the defendant’s involvement in the robbery against the factors just
enumerated, the Court “placed [him] at the Enmund pole of the Tison-Enmund spectrum.”
(Ramirez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 397.) As a result, the Court concluded “the jury’s
special-circumstance true finding cannot stand.” (Banks, at p. 811.)
Not long after Banks, the Court revisited this issue in Clark, also concluding the evidence
was insufficient to support the defendant’s robbery-murder special circumstance findings.
(Clark, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 611.) The defendant in Clark planned a burglary of a
computer store to occur after the store was closed. According to the plan, his codefendant
was to carry out the burglary and carry an unloaded gun. However, his codefendant ended
up carrying a gun loaded with one bullet and fired that bullet when he unexpectedly
encountered a store employee, killing her. (Id. at pp. 612-613.) Our high court concluded
there was insufficient evidence Clark acted with reckless indifference to human life
because (a) Clark was not physically present when his codefendant killed the employee
and was therefore unable to intervene; (b) there was no evidence Clark knew his
codefendant was predisposed to be violent; and (c) Clark planned for the robbery to take
place after the store closed, and the gun was not supposed to be loaded. (Id. at pp. 619-
622.) In sum, the court believed there was “nothing in [Clark’s] plan that one can point to
that elevated the risk to human life beyond those risks inherent in any armed robbery.”
(Id. at p. 623.)
Law argues his case is like Banks because there was no evidence he or May
intended to kill the victim, “[r]ather, like in Banks, the killing here appeared to be a
17
spontaneous response to unexpected resistance from the victim.” But the Court’s
conclusion Banks was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to
human life did not focus on the spontaneity of the shooting. Instead, what the Court
found significant was the defendant’s role as the getaway driver who was not aware his
codefendants were going to use guns during the robbery. Because he “did not see the
shooting happen, did not have reason to know it was going to happen, and could not do
anything to stop the shooting or render assistance,” the Court concluded he was not
“willingly involved in the violent manner in which the particular offense [was]
committed.” (Banks, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 801, 803, fn. 5, 807.)
Law, in contrast, was willingly involved in the violent manner in which his and
May’s robbery took place. He and May not only broke into the victim’s house armed, but
they used the guns to threaten the victim and his roommates throughout the duration of
the robbery. Even if we gave Law the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was the “first
defendant” in the evidence the jury heard, he still watched without intervening when his
accomplice pistol whipped the victim once and tried to do it again. Being at the scene of
the shooting, he could have tried to stop his accomplice’s violent behavior or to help the
victim once he had been shot, but he did neither. We agree with the People that this sort
of conduct easily meets our state’s standard for what constitutes being a major participant
who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Indeed, we are not aware of a single
case that concludes a defendant who personally committed a robbery, used a gun, and
was present for the shooting did not meet the standard in section 190.2, subdivision (d).
18
The defendants who have been able to get their special circumstance findings vacated
under Banks and Clark are those who were not wielding guns themselves and also not
present for the shooting (either because they were acting as getaway drivers or because
they were involved in the planning of the crime only). Law’s conduct is clearly
distinguishable.
Although the trial court erred by concluding the special circumstance finding, on
its own, rendered Law ineligible for relief—that is, the court erred by failing to determine
whether Law qualified as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to
human life under Banks and Clark—we conclude the error was harmless because the
record demonstrates the answer to that question is yes. As a result, we conclude the
denial of Law’s petition was proper. (See People v. Gutierrez-Salazar (2019) 38
Cal.App.5th 411, 419 [concluding that because “[t]he language of the special
circumstance tracks the language of Senate Bill 1437 and the new felony-murder
statutes,” a jury’s true finding on § 190.2, subd. (d) renders a § 1170.95 petitioner
ineligible for relief].)
3. Any error in failing to appoint counsel for Law was harmless beyond
a reasonable doubt
Law also argues the court erred by not appointing him counsel to aid in the court’s
determination of whether it should issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary
hearing. We need not address this issue because even if it were error for the court not to
appoint counsel at that stage in the petitioning process, the error was harmless. Given the
trial evidence, counsel would not have been able to demonstrate in a reply brief or
19
otherwise that Law was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to
human life.
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order denying Law’s petition.
SLOUGH
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
20
21
Filed 5/5/20
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, E072845
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF100589)
TERRELL LAW,
Defendant and Appellant. The County of Riverside
ORDER GRANTING
PUBLICATION
_______________________________________
THE COURT
The request for publication of the opinion filed on April 27, 2020 is GRANTED. The
opinion meets the standard for publication as specified in California Rules of Court, rule
8.1105(c). It is ORDERED that the opinion filed in this matter on April 27, 2020, be certified for
publication.
SLOUGH
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
1