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

MacalisterBali

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
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 documents should be included in the application?
 
Your friend is way beyond the help of a bunch of strangers on the Internet. She should be discussing this with an attorney.

You're saying that she did have knowledge of the robbery since she was involved in plotting it!

YOU shouldn't be blabbing about her case online. You can do nothing but hurt her by posting details as you have.
 
Your friend is way beyond the help of a bunch of strangers on the Internet. She should be discussing this with an attorney.

You're saying that she did have knowledge of the robbery since she was involved in plotting it!

YOU shouldn't be blabbing about her case online. You can do nothing but hurt her by posting details as you have.

I wouldn't normally respond to trolls who post hateful things for the fun of it. But this is a legal form to help people with legal questions. Sadly there are people like you on here who spread your hate on other peoples questions according to your history. This is a form of bullying and unacceptable.
 
Does she qualify for SB 1437?

Based solely on your description here, yes, she likely will get a new trial. She will still have to contend with conspiracy to commit robbery, but the sentence would be significantly less and she would get credit for time served.
This is exactly the sort of scenario the bill was passed for.

Are her chances to win a SB 1437 application slim due to the fact that public defender is not longer practicing?

The status of the public defender has nothing to do with it. Based only on the information provided I would say it is very likely she will get a new trial. The real question is how long it will take. With legal assistance things would move faster. Without it you just have to be patient. She is one of many seeking the same thing.

How would she establish that she is eligible for resentencing?

If she was convicted of murder (even with the plea agreement) based on the felony murder rule, and she is not the person who actually committed the murder, she will qualify.

What supporting documents

Whatever documents the application specifically requests. Regardless, the case will have to be reviewed and it is that review that matters. If she was not present for the murder and was never alleged to have any knowledge of a plan to commit murder, then she may have an excellent chance of shedding the murder charge, but again, she will still have felony conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery.
 
How would she establish that she is eligible for resentencing?
What supporting documents should be included in the application?


Every prison has a bevy of smart, knowledgeable "jailhouse lawyers".

She might want to discuss the basics of the law with one or two such individuals.

Most of those people draft better motions than many 1st or 2nd year licensed lawyers.

At a minimum she'll learn where to get the answers to her questions.

Going forward I suggest you only discuss the "facts" of the case relative to what "facts" were known at trial.

Never ever discuss what a defendant may have known or told you, such information can be very damaging.

In fact, if a person starts to discuss facts of any crime, instruct the person to stop because what is told to you can be used at trial to help the state and hurt the defendant.

No lawyer worth his or her salt wants to know the facts of any crime as posited by the accused.
 
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 documents should be included in the application?

1. When you refer to "qualify[ing] for SB 1437," I assume you're talking about that portion of SB 1437 that was/will be codified as section 1170.95 of the Penal Code. Correct? If so, the conditions for seeking relief under that section are pretty clear, and you can read them at the link provided.

2. That shouldn't be of any relevance whatsoever.

3. Again, it's set forth pretty clearly in the bill/law: "A person convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner's murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts."

4. Whatever documents her lawyer recommends.
 
I briefly perused through the law and believe it is only about resentencing for those who qualify.

The words "based solely on your description" said by @mightymoose are absolutely critical here. You have summarized facts which may be very different than the ones adduced at trial. We don't know. On the surface, the new law seems to be applicable to the situation you described here and the defendant could apply.

What @Highwayman implies (and well intended) is that you appear (understandably) sympathetic to the defendant. But this may be a more complex case than it seems (among other caveats which include what @army judge refers to about further private information which may have been shared with you privately.) Obtaining relief doesn't appear to be automatic and is fact dependent. We also don't know how the words "or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life" may be interpreted and be applicable. There is no precedent yet. The fact that there was also a conviction for a gun charge and that she was involved in the planning and in playing a role (even as a lure) makes it impossible for any of us, even using a presumed set of facts, to even approach what chances of a favorable outcome might be. We can't and we don't make any statement that your friend can qualify.

It seems that the petitioner (the defendant) bears the burden of proving why their case qualifies for relief and a persuasive argument must be made. As to assistance, I'm assuming that it will be available in some fashion, including online criminal reform advocates who may provide some information.
 
I am curious how matters like this will play out. The law does allow for resentencing, however will the same plea deal remain valid minus the murder charge? It is reasonable to argue that many plea agreements would not have been made had murder not been on the table.
I am curious of cases like this one could get a new trial or even a new plea agreement rather than resentencing.
The legislature opened thousands of cans of worms with this.
 
I don't know enough and that's a great question. From a legal standpoint there hasn't been any law struck down as being unconstitutional. A certain class of individuals are being given some relief from an actual sentence that 'morally' may be extensive, e.g. 25 years, to which those with a plea bargain don't actually face with or without this leniency. Legislature seeks to address the most extreme of cases.

Now does this mean that criminal lawyers, advocates and human rights groups aren't going to be busy making the argument you set forth and appealing to the press about unfairness? I can only wonder what this may bring - but I'm guessing this question had to have been prior addressed somewhere. I'd like to find a source where it is discussed.
 
It doesn't address the question I have about plea agreements

Plea agreements are rock solid.

I have seen many try to get a plea agreement and the resulting plea overturned, none have been successful.

Now my little world isn't comprehensive, and maybe one or two minnows have succeeded.

In the case of your new Cali law, I predict there will be many challenges to plea agreements.

I predict they'll fail just as the ones who challenge their plea deal when the walls, bars, and reality of prison existence hits home for a 30 or 40 year bit!

It is certainly an interesting topic you've raised, because we're going to see legal precedents made.
 
Back
Top