People v. Bishop

SLOUGH J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF74986 Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Alan L. Amann and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SLOUGH J.

Carl Bishop appeals from the denial of his Penal Code section 1170.95 petition to vacate his murder conviction. In 2000, he was convicted of first degree murder with a felony-murder special circumstance, which required the jury to find he was “a major participant” in a felony murder who acted with “reckless indifference to human life.” (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subds. (a)(17) & (d), unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) The trial court summarily denied his section 1170.95 petition, concluding the special circumstance finding rendered him ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

On appeal, Bishop argues that because his conviction predates our Supreme Court's decisions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark), which clarified the meaning of “major participant” and “reckless indifference to human life, ” he has established a prima facie case for relief under section 1170.95. He argues the statute entitles him to challenge the validity of his felony-murder special circumstance finding at an evidentiary hearing where he can present new evidence and the prosecution bears the burden of proof.