People v. Williams

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

H048050

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

October 7, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 211454

DANNER, J.

In 2017, a jury found appellant Eric Williams guilty of two counts of first degree felony murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.^[1]) The trial court sentenced Williams to a prison term of 50 years to life.

In 2019, Williams filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 (petition). After appointing counsel and considering briefing submitted by the Santa Clara County District Attorney (district attorney) and Williams, the trial court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.

On appeal, Williams contends the trial court erred by failing to use the proper standard when it decided that his petition did not make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. The Attorney General concedes that Williams's petition stated a prima facie case and agrees this matter should be remanded for the trial court to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition.

We agree with the parties. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's March 2, 2020 order denying Williams's petition and remand with directions to issue an order to show cause under section 1170.95, subdivision (c), and hold a hearing pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (d).

I. Facts and procedural background

A. Summary of the Offense^[2]

On June 27, 2008, Omar Aquino went to see a movie with Fame Thomas who was the younger sister of Kenneth Thomas and Faith Thomas.^[3] Fame had previously told Kenneth and Faith that Aquino “ ‘had money.' ” Faith did not like Aquino and suggested to Kenneth that they rob Aquino.

After seeing the movie, Fame and Aquino went to Aquino's residence. Aquino's sister, Maria Aquino-Sanchez, was there with her nine-year-old son, who was asleep. Kenneth Thomas, Faith Thomas, Victoria Thompson, Kim Pham, Michael Adams, and Williams followed Fame and Aquino from the movie theater to his residence. Thereafter, Kenneth Thomas, Faith Thomas, Adams, and Williams entered Aquino's residence.

Witnesses heard four to five gunshots and contacted police. Kenneth Thomas was seen holding a gun when he exited the residence. The police arrived and found Aquino and Aquino-Sanchez dead lying face down and taped with duct tape. Aquino had been shot twice, and Aquino-Sanchez had been shot once. The residence had been ransacked, and items were missing.

B. Procedural History

In October 2009, the grand jury of Santa Clara County returned an indictment charging Williams and codefendants Adams, Kenneth Thomas, Fame Thomas, and Faith Thomas with the murders of Aquino and Aquino-Sanchez on or about June 28, 2008 (§ 187; counts 1 & 2). In counts 1 and 2, as to Kenneth Thomas, the indictment alleged personal and intentional discharge of a handgun in the commission of murder (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)) and special circumstances for multiple murder and robbery murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17)).^[4] In April 2016, a first amended indictment was filed, but that indictment did not alter the allegations in counts 1 and 2 of the original indictment.

Williams, Adams, and Kenneth Thomas were tried together before a jury. In December 2016, the jury convicted Williams of two counts of first degree “felony murder” (capitalization omitted). In July 2017, the trial court sentenced Williams to a prison term of 50 years to life. At the sentencing hearing, Williams's trial counsel asserted the trial evidence was “not clear as to whether or not Mr. Williams actually entered the residence.” The trial court responded, “I believe you're welcome that [sic] the evidence indicates Mr. Williams was not in the house at the time of the shooting. However, he is still guilty of felony murder and... I think based upon the fact that there are two victims in this matter that the sentences should run consec[u]tive.”

In 2019, Williams, on his own behalf, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court appointed counsel to represent Williams. Williams's counsel filed a supplemental petition. The district attorney filed an opposition to the petition. Williams filed a reply and a supplemental reply.

On March 2, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on Williams's petition. At the hearing, the district attorney confirmed that the only theory presented to the jury for Williams's guilt was felony murder and “it was not [the district attorney's] theory that Mr. Williams was the actual killer.” The trial court stated that Williams had made an initial prima facie showing that he falls within the provisions of section 1170.95. However, the court concluded there was substantial evidence presented at Williams's trial that would have supported giving a jury instruction on whether Williams was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court also concluded that “there was substantial evidence by which Mr. Williams could have been convicted of felony murder under this new law.” On that basis, the court decided that Williams did not make a “prima facie case for relief” and denied his petition.

Williams timely appealed the trial court's order denying his petition.

Williams filed an opening brief in this court, and the Attorney General filed a respondent's brief fully conceding error. Thereafter, on July 23, 2021, Williams waived his right to file a reply brief and requested expedited reversal based on the Attorney General's concession. On August 20, 2021, the district attorney filed an application for permission to file an amicus curiae letter brief in support of the trial court's order denying Williams's petition. Williams filed an objection to the district attorney's request to file an amicus curiae brief. On September 2, 2021, this court issued an order stating that we would consider Williams's request for expedited reversal and the district attorney's application to file an amicus curiae brief with the merits of this appeal. Accordingly, we will address Williams's request and the district attorney's application in this opinion, post.

II. Discussion

Williams contends the trial court erred by failing to use the standard articulated by this court in People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 981 (Drayton), overruled on another ground in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 962-970 (Lewis). He further maintains that, under Drayton, we should reverse the trial court because “nothing in [the trial record] refutes his entitlement to relief as a matter of law.”

The Attorney General “agrees the trial court erred and that the matter should be remanded for further proceedings.” The Attorney General states that “[w]hile the trial court's characterization of the facts [regarding Williams's participation in the robbery and actions evincing reckless indifference] appears to be correct, there is no indication in the record that [Williams] was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court should have issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing under section 1170[.95], subdivision (d), to weigh the evidence and decide whether relief should be granted. The matter should be remanded for this proceeding to take place.”

A. Applicable Statutes and Legal Principles

“The Legislature enacted Senate Bill [No.] 1437 [(Stats. 2018, ch. 1015)] to ‘amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine... 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.' [Citation.] The bill amended sections 188 and 189, which pertain to the definition of malice and the degrees of murder.” (People v. McClure (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1061 (McClure).)

“The Legislature amended section 188 by adding subdivision (a)(3), which provides: ‘Except as stated in subdivision (e) of Section 189, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.' [Citations.] And section 189, subdivision (e), now limits liability for murder to a person who was either the actual killer or, though not the actual killer, acted ‘with intent to kill' and ‘aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer' in the commission of first degree murder, or was ‘a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.' ” (McClure, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 1061.)

“In addition to substantively amending sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code, Senate Bill [No.] 1437 added section 1170.95, which provides a procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief.” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 959.)

“Pursuant to section 1170.95, an offender must file a petition in the sentencing court averring that: ‘(1) A complaint information, or indictment 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 degree or second degree murder following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder[;] [¶] [and] (3) The petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of...