California's New Felony Murder Rule ( SB 1437)

[MacalisterBali]

I need some clarity when it comes to California's new Felony Murder Rule ( SB 1437)

My friend is currently incarcerated at California Institute for women in Corona California. She is currently serving a sentence of sixteen years to life, fifteen years for second degree murder plus a one year gun enhancement charge.

Case in brief:
She was seeing the victim and told her on again off again boyfriend that the victim carries a large amount of cash. They then plotted a robbery. The boyfriend asked his friend to help unbeknownst to her. The murder occurred after she went on a date with the victim. The victim dropped her off at her car and she drove off. Then the robbery occurred. A struggle took place and her boyfriend’s friend shot the victim. She found about the murder the next day on the news.

During the plea negotiations, her family ran out of money for the private lawyer so she was assigned a Public Defender. She took the plea deal presented by the Public Defender . The Public Defender explained this is the best deal she can get since the murder took place in commission of a robbery she had knowledge of. Even though she didn’t have prior knowledge about the boyfriend’s friend being involved or the gun. She learned about the gun during news story.


Questions :
Does she qualify for SB 1437?
Are her chances to win a SB 1437 application slim due to the fact that public defender is not longer practicing ?
How would she establish that she is eligible for resentencing?
What supporting documentation should be attached?

 

[quincy]

Following is a link to information on the new law that you can pass on to your friend. It is recommended that a prisoner contact the public defenders office in the county where they were convicted, or their trial attorney, or their appeals attorney.

http://prisonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/New-Murder-Law-October-2018.pdf

This is a complicated law that requires a personal review of all facts of the conviction so a forum will not be able to help your friend. Sorry.

 

[xylene]

the person (who was not the actual killer) was a
“major participant”
in the underlying felony and acted with
“reckless indifference”
to life

They then plotted a robbery.

Seems like there will not (nor should not) be relief.

 

[FlyingRon]

The fact the PD is no longer practicing is neither hear nor there. If she is still eligible for PD services, she should be provided another.

You should read the prisonlaw article in Quincy's post for sure.

She has two major hurdles to show to do this:

1. She has to show that the case is even appealable. You haven't presented enough information for us to tell. There are definite time constraints and the fact that she took a "plea deal" (which presumes she plead guilty) is going to limit her options. Further, whether the new law can be retroactively applied here is up in the air. The possibility to do so is based on an untested assertion that it is similar to a different application of the law.

2. She has to then show that the new law applies to her case and somehow the application of the new law would change the outcome. That's not a lock given the details.

 

[quincy]

I am not seeing that there is any "downside" to filing a petition - which could be a nightmare for California prosecutors.

There are some aspects that MacalisterBali mentions that potentially could allow for a reduction in the friend's sentence (e.g., the one year gun enhancement).

I wonder what CdwJava's opinion of this new law is .. although I think I can guess at it with some accuracy.

 

[CdwJava]

My opinion is that this law is complete and total <expletive>! I am told that there are a few caveats and exceptions that do not yet make it too easy to obtain relief, but, there have already been numerous statements of intent to file to reduce or free people who were complicit in homicides but did not pull the trigger. Friends that are prosecutors are already lamenting not only the filings that are still to come in the new year, but the effect it will have on future cases when we may now have only a Conspiracy charge against everyone who did not inflict the killing blow. Not only does this new law impact the ability of investigators and prosecutors to utilize potential criminal charges of homicide to leverage testimony, it has the very real potential of rendering gang-related homicide investigations, in particular, untenable when forensics or neutral eyewitness testimony cannot identify THE shooter/Killer.

Numbers for potential filings for relief vary between 400 and 1,000. But, as we all know, there could be more inmates to file since they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to make the new law fit their particular case.

Here is some brief summary info on the law:

https://www.kcra.com/article/new-california-law-could-reopen-up-to-1000-murder-cases/23574415

 

[Taxing Matters]

The felony murder rule is a blunt instrument that, as implemented in at least some states, can produce truly unfair outcomes. While I can see a role for a well crafted felony murder rule, what a lot of states have are not all that well thought out.

 

[CdwJava]

Ours effectively eviscerates the felony murder rule rendering it moot.

In recent years California has established a habit of enacting ill-thought out legislation with far-reaching and unanticipated (allegedly, per the assorted authors and supporters) impact on the population as a whole. Legislation by soundbyte and kumbaya is not working so well out here. Well ... I suppose these new laws work fine for the criminals, but they leave the rest of the population hanging and becoming even greater prey.

 

[quincy]

My opinion is that this law is complete and total <expletive>! I am told that there are a few caveats and exceptions that do not yet make it too easy to obtain relief, but, there have already been numerous statements of intent to file to reduce or free people who were complicit in homicides but did not pull the trigger. Friends that are prosecutors are already lamenting not only the filings that are still to come in the new year, but the effect it will have on future cases when we may now have only a Conspiracy charge against everyone who did not inflict the killing blow. Not only does this new law impact the ability of investigators and prosecutors to utilize potential criminal charges of homicide to leverage testimony, it has the very real potential of rendering gang-related homicide investigations, in particular, untenable when forensics or neutral eyewitness testimony cannot identify THE shooter/Killer.

Numbers for potential filings for relief vary between 400 and 1,000. But, as we all know, there could be more inmates to file since they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to make the new law fit their particular case.

Here is some brief summary info on the law:

https://www.kcra.com/article/new-california-law-could-reopen-up-to-1000-murder-cases/23574415

I suspected there might be an expletive included in your opinion of the new law, Carl.

I can understand the intent of the law and I am not sure the intent is all that bad - but the release from prison of a slew of prisoners previously convicted of felony murder is a tad worrisome. The evaluation of cases where petitions for relief have been filed will not be an easy task.

I am sort of glad that Michigan is so disorganized that no legislation of any real substance ever gets enacted here. Haha.

 

[not2cleverRed]

In any case, OP should be cautious in his support of his female "friend".

She already has a history of conspiring with some of the people she dates to victimize other people she dates.

 

[CdwJava]

I suspected there might be an expletive included in your opinion of the new law, Carl.

I can understand the intent of the law and I am not sure the intent is all that bad - but the release from prison of a slew of prisoners previously convicted of felony murder is a tad worrisome. The evaluation of cases where petitions for relief have been filed will not be an easy task.

I am sort of glad that Michigan is so disorganized that no legislation of any real substance ever gets enacted here. Haha.

California has been sprinting to the left in an effort to make the state as crime-friendly as possible the last few years. I have every confidence that this new law will be interpreted in such a manner to be at least as destructive as its slew of predecessors has been.

Most all of these reforms have had good intent, but, the end result has most often been anything but "good" for most of of the general public.

I would love for our legislature to meet every other year for just a few months. Instead, they have the better part of each year to pass more criminal-friendly laws ands taxes. And, in a state that has super-majorities of Democrats in both houses of our legislature and holds every statewide elected office, we can expect much more of the same and continued expenditures into unsustainability. ... <sigh> 3 years and 7 months ... 3 years and 7 months ...

 

[quincy]

California has been sprinting to the left in an effort to make the state as crime-friendly as possible the last few years. I have every confidence that this new law will be interpreted in such a manner to be at least as destructive as its slew of predecessors has been.

Most all of these reforms have had good intent, but, the end result has most often been anything but "good" for most of of the general public.

I would love for our legislature to meet every other year for just a few months. Instead, they have the better part of each year to pass more criminal-friendly laws ands taxes. And, in a state that has super-majorities of Democrats in both houses of our legislature and holds every statewide elected office, we can expect much more of the same and continued expenditures into unsustainability. ... <sigh> 3 years and 7 months ... 3 years and 7 months ...

I wouldn't blame Democrats necessarily. It is California's population that is driving the demand for change and your legislature is simply responding to the majority's wishes. Which is actually how it should be.

You just have a wacky population that demands odd changes.

I am confident you can hold out for another 3 years and 7 months ... if climate change has not obliterated your state before then. I have family and friends close to the recent fire zones and they are considering leaving only because it is getting dangerous to breathe. And breathing is sort of necessary.

 

[FlyingRon]

I've been determined to cause cancer in the state of California.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I've been determined to cause cancer in the state of California.

I've not seen a product in the last year that didn't have a California Cancer warning on it.

 

[quincy]

I've been determined to cause cancer in the state of California.

Is that a movie quote? I often fail to recognize them.

edit: Never mind. I just read Proposition 65.