Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437) offers a pathway for individuals previously convicted of murder under the former felony murder rule to pursue post-conviction relief. If you meet the necessary eligibility criteria, you, through your legal representative, can initiate the process by submitting a petition for resentencing to the court where your original conviction occurred. This petition will assert that, in light of SB 1437's revised restrictions on applying the felony murder rule and natural and probable consequences doctrine, your murder conviction was unwarranted.

Subsequently, the court will thoroughly review your petition and the evidence presented. If the court concurs that your prior murder conviction was inappropriate under the previous law, it could opt to re-sentence you for the underlying felony offense. This potentially leads to a reduction in your sentence. The outcome hinges on the specifics of your case and the court's ruling. Depending on these factors, you could either secure your release from custody if you have already served the requisite time for the modified sentence or witness the reversal of your murder conviction.

If you believe you meet the criteria for seeking relief from a murder conviction, it is advisable to seek legal counsel for a comprehensive case evaluation and guidance through the process. The Santa Ana team at California Criminal Lawyer Group is ready to help.

Old Felony Murder Rules

In California, before the enactment of Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437) in 2018, there existed an old felony murder rule. This rule allowed individuals to be charged with and convicted of first-degree murder if a death occurred while certain specified felonies were being committed, regardless of whether they intended to cause harm or death. It meant that individuals involved in these felonies could be held criminally responsible for any resulting deaths, even if they were not directly responsible for the fatal act.

California's standard definition of murder, on the other hand, required the act to be committed with the intent to kill or with malice aforethought. This old felony murder law, however, deviated from this standard by allowing murder charges even when there was no intent to kill involved.

Under the previous felony murder law, a person could be convicted of felony murder simply because a victim died during the commission of a felony, irrespective of their intentions. This held true even if the individual:

  • Did not intend to cause harm or death.
  • Remained unaware of a homicide occurring, or
  • If the death was accidental.

The sole requirements for conviction were that:

  • A felony was committed, or the individual aided in its commission and,
  • A person lost their life, regardless of whether the death was accidental.

The New Felony Murder Rule and How it Differs From the Old Rule

California's recent changes to the felony murder law, brought about by Senate Bill 1437, introduce a more stringent requirement concerning a defendant's intent than the previous rule. Under SB 1437, individuals could face liability for felony murder if they attempt, participate, or engage in a felony under specific circumstances:

  • Causing a person's death directly.
  • Aiding or abetting in committing first-degree murder with a clear intent to kill.
  • Being categorized as a "major participant" in the felony and displaying "reckless indifference to human life".
  • The death of a police officer or a peace officer occurs due to your actions while they are performing official duties.

In determining whether you qualify as a "major participant" or exhibited "reckless indifference to human life," courts meticulously assess the specific details of your case. Factors they consider include:

  • Any premeditation or planning related to the felony.
  • Your physical presence at the scene of the death.
  • Your role in providing weapons and your awareness of whether firearms were loaded.
  • Your efforts to prevent harm.
  • Your capacity to prevent harm or seek help.

For example, you participated in a robbery, but your role was to act as a lookout outside the building while others entered to commit the crime. Tragically, during the course of this robbery, an individual inside the building unexpectedly suffered a fatal heart attack due to a preexisting medical condition.

Under the previous felony murder law, you could have faced charges of felony murder simply because the death occurred while you robbed the premises. This would apply regardless of whether you had any intention of causing harm or death and regardless of the fact that your actions were not directly linked to the fatality.

However, under the updated felony murder law established by SB 1437, your liability for felony murder hinges on two critical factors:

  • Whether you displayed reckless indifference to human life and,
  • Your level of involvement in the felony.

In this scenario, you had no knowledge of the victim's medical condition, had no intent to cause harm, and were not actively participating inside the building where the fatality occurred. Therefore, you cannot be held accountable for felony murder. This revised law places a heightened emphasis on your intent and your actual role in the felony. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood of murder charges in situations where you did not directly contribute to the fatality.

Penalties for Felony Murder Under the New Rule

Felony murder can be classified as either first-degree or second-degree murder, depending on the circumstances of the case. This distinction depends on the nature of the underlying felony and other contributing factors.

First-degree felony murder relates to more grave felonies and specific aggravating elements. These elements involve murder during the commission or attempted commission of certain serious felonies, for example, rape, arson, robbery, carjacking, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, or other significant offenses. Malice aforethought is a critical element in first-degree murders.

Second-degree felony murder involves all other instances of murder that do not meet the precise criteria for first-degree felony murder. These cases involve felony murder while committing less serious felonies or in situations where the aggravating factors required for first-degree felony murder are absent. -degree felony murder carries its set of penalties.

The penalties outlined under SB 1437, like in the previous felony murder rule, depend on whether the murder meets the first or second-degree threshold. Here is a look at the penalties under SB 1437:

  1. Direct Participation in a Killing

If an individual directly causes someone's death during the commission of a felony, and he/she acted with malice aforethought (expressly or implicitly), they could face a first-degree murder conviction. The punishment for murder in these cases is:

  • Possible life imprisonment or,
  • 25 years to life.

Second-degree felony murder offenders will face 15 years to life in prison.

  1. Aiding and Abetting With Intent to Kill

If an individual did not carry out the killing but actively aided, abetted, commanded, counseled, induced, solicited, assisted, or requested the actual killer to commit first-degree murder with the specific intent to kill, he/she could be convicted of murder.

Per Penal Code 31, there is no distinction between the actual perpetrator of the crime and any individual who aids or abets a crime. Therefore, aiding and abetting a first-degree felony murder will result in

  • Possible life imprisonment or,
  • 25 years to life.

And for aiding and abetting a second-degree felony murder, you will face 15 years to life in prison.

  1. Major Participant With Reckless Indifference to Human Life

If an individual played a significant role in the underlying felony and displayed reckless indifference to human life during the felony's execution, he/she could be convicted of murder. Major participants include those who plan or provide the weapons used in the felony murder.

The penalties for this murder conviction are similar to those stated above.

Cases Impacted by SB 1437’s Provisions

Individuals currently incarcerated for felony murder convictions can request a reduction in their sentences, subject to specific conditions. This is thanks to Senate Bill 1437’s retroactive effect. However, there is a crucial requirement for the new law to be applicable: it solely pertains to defendants who were found guilty under what is known as the "natural and probable consequences theory" (NPC theory).

Under the NPC theory, a defendant can be convicted of felony murder if these criteria are satisfied:

  • The defendant participated in a felony, often called the "target" crime.
  • During the commission of this felony, a co-participant, someone involved in the felony alongside the defendant, committed murder.
  • Given all the circumstances, the murder was a foreseeable outcome of the criminal acts.

Anyone who assisted or abetted another person in committing the crime is a co-participant. Further, a "natural and probable consequence" is an outcome that a reasonable person would anticipate if no unusual intervening factors existed.

The courts determine whether a consequence qualifies as natural and probable by thoroughly examining the facts and circumstances specific to each case.

Eligibility for an SB 1437 Resentencing

You are only eligible for resentencing under SB 1437 if you meet the following specific prerequisites:

  • An information, complaint, or indictment must have been filed against the petitioner, permitting the prosecution to pursue charges related to felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
  • The petitioner must have been found guilty of first-degree or second-degree murder either through a trial or by accepting a plea deal instead of going to trial. This implies that the petitioner could have been convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder.
  • Following the enactment of SB 1437, the petitioner should not have been eligible for conviction on charges of first-degree or second-degree murder under the law.

These combined conditions determine the eligibility criteria for individuals seeking resentencing under SB 1437, ensuring that the law is appropriately applied to the relevant cases.

Rules for Appealing a Sentence Under SB 1437

Appealing a sentence under SB 1437 involves several essential steps and considerations based on the earlier information regarding the law. You must follow these guidelines as the petitioner to maximize your chances of a successful outcome.

  1. Petition

The appeal process involves specific steps. The California Criminal Lawyer Group will help you through each step:

  • Filing location — You must file your appeal with either the court responsible for your original sentencing or the prosecuting agency that handled your case.
  • Service requirement — Alongside filing, you must serve the petition on multiple parties, including the attorney or public defender (of the county you were convicted in) who represented you in the initial trial. You must also serve the district attorney or prosecuting agency involved in your case.
  • Eligibility declaration — Within the petition, you must include a statement demonstrating your eligibility for a sentence reduction. This eligibility is contingent on satisfying the three conditions outlined earlier.
  • "Record of conviction" — Including your "record of conviction" in the petition is advisable. This document offers judges a more comprehensive view of the case, potentially reducing the chance of a summary denial.
  • Resubmission possibility — If a judge denies a petition due to a failure to meet the prima facie eligibility requirements, there could be an opportunity to submit a more detailed petition addressing any deficiencies.

Submitting a meticulously prepared petition is pivotal to a successful appeal under SB 1437. Seeking legal counsel is recommended to ensure that all necessary documentation and declarations are correctly included in the petition.

  1. Resentencing Hearing

Following petition filing, the court will thoroughly review your petition to ascertain prima facie eligibility. Subsequently, the prosecutor will file a response within 60 days of receiving the petition, and you could submit a reply within 30 days following the prosecutor's response. Extensions to these timelines are possible under good cause. Should your petition demonstrate entitlement to relief, the court will issue an order to show cause, signifying further progress in your case.

If you qualify for a sentence reduction, a hearing is convened to decide whether your sentence should be reduced.

Within 60 days of the order to show cause, the court will conduct a resentencing hearing to decide whether to nullify your murder conviction and revoke your sentence. You are not required to argue for a sentence reduction during this hearing. Instead, it falls upon the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, why your sentence should stay the same.

If the prosecutor fails to prove your ineligibility for resentencing beyond a reasonable doubt, your conviction and related allegations or enhancements will be vacated. Subsequently, resentencing will be based on the remaining charges.

Ultimately, the presiding judge makes the final call on the new sentence.

A person undergoing resentencing will receive credit for their time served. Additionally, the judge could order you to be under parole supervision for up to three years after serving the new sentence.

Note: Alternatively, your attorney and the prosecutor could opt to waive a resentencing hearing and agree that you are eligible to have your murder conviction vacated and be resentenced.

Senate Bill 775

Senate Bill 775, also known as SB 775, passed in 2021, amended Penal Code Section 1170.95 regarding the resentencing of individuals convicted of specific crimes, including murder, under particular legal theories.

The bill expanded eligibility for resentencing. The accommodates resentencing for individuals convicted of:

  • Attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine — A person faces allegations of trying to murder another while legally connected to a primary felony under this doctrine. This legal principle can result in prosecuting individuals who, while not directly involved in the attempted murder, played a role in the initial felony that ultimately led to the attempted murder charge.
  • Manslaughter when prosecuted under theories like felony murder or natural and probable consequences — Manslaughter, when prosecuted under legal theories like felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, describes a scenario where a manslaughter charge is brought against individuals based on these particular legal frameworks. In these situations, individuals could face manslaughter charges, even if their initial legal predicament was related to a different felony or offense.

Redesignation of Conviction

In SB 775, the redesignation of a conviction plays a pivotal role in the complex resentencing process. This legal concept comes into play when eligible individuals pursue resentencing, usually to lessen their sentences due to legal changes or evolving criteria.

The core idea here is that the petitioner's initial conviction can change under carefully outlined conditions under the law. It is not about changing the facts of the case but how the law views and categorizes that conviction specifically for resentencing.

This redesignation's primary objective is to ensure that the court evaluates the conviction within the most fitting legal framework during the entire resentencing procedure. This means that the court can reassess whether the conviction should be considered:

  • The primary offense, also known as the target offense — This is the primary crime that resulted in the conviction. For example, if the original conviction was for murder, murder would be the target offense, or
  • If it should be reclassified as an underlying felony linked to the primary crime — It is the secondary crime or felony connected to the primary offense. In some cases, a conviction can involve both the primary crime and the secondary felony. For example, a murder conviction could also be related to an underlying felony like robbery.

Petition to Vacate a Murder Conviction and Motion to Vacate Judgment

In the criminal justice system, the petition to vacate a murder conviction and the motion to vacate the criminal judgment are distinct processes serving different purposes.

The petition to vacate a murder conviction is tailored exclusively for individuals convicted of murder. It applies when conditions or alterations in the law render them eligible for a fresh evaluation of their sentences or even the annulment of their murder convictions.

Conversely, the motion to vacate a criminal judgment functions as a more comprehensive legal tool that transcends the confines of murder convictions. Its primary objective is to nullify the verdict, including convictions and sentencing. This motion can be set in motion for various reasons, including:

  • Constitutional violations.
  • The emergence of newly discovered evidence.
  • Instances of inadequate legal representation or
  • Procedural irregularities encountered during the trial.

Its scope extends across a diverse spectrum of criminal cases and legal contexts.

Penal Code 1473.7 governs the motion to vacate judgment. It addresses the imperative need for individuals who have regained their liberty to have a legitimate avenue for challenging their convictions. In the past, these individuals often had to resort to habeas corpus petitions, which were only accessible while the defendant remained incarcerated.

Penal Code 1473.7 sets three primary legal grounds for a vacation of a judgment:

Prejudicial Error in Proceedings

This basis for initiating a motion to vacate arises in case a prejudicial error occurred during the criminal proceedings. This error must significantly impair the defendant's ability to:

  • Comprehend.
  • Defend against, or
  • Knowingly accept the adverse immigration consequences of a guilty plea or a plea of "no contest" (nolo contendere).

A finding of legal invalidity based on this error could subsequently lead to a determination of ineffective legal representation.

Newly Discovered Evidence of Actual Innocence

A second rationale driving the pursuit of a motion to vacate is the revelation of fresh evidence substantiating the defendant's actual innocence. This evidence must be newly unearthed and exert substantial influence in supporting the defendant's claim of innocence.

Conviction Rooted in Race, Ethnicity, or National Origin

This legal foundation allows defendants to pursue a motion to vacate if it can be convincingly established that a defendant's conviction or sentencing was based on race, ethnicity, or country of origin. This provision directly addresses cases in which discriminatory factors played a pivotal role in determining the outcome of the conviction or sentencing.

Contact a Petition to Vacate a Murder Conviction Near Me

Consulting a seasoned Santa Ana attorney experienced in handling petitions to vacate murder convictions is a prudent move. These attorneys have the requisite expertise to navigate the legal procedures linked to murder conviction petitions.

At California Criminal Lawyer Group, we understand the law's nuances and deliver well-informed guidance. During your consultation with us, we will comprehensively evaluate your case. This evaluation entails reviewing the circumstances, evidence, and pertinent legal precedents. This helps determine your case’s strengths and merits.

We will develop a winning strategy based on the facts of your case and represent you in court, aiming to secure the best outcome. Call us today at 714-844-4151 and schedule a free case assessment.