People v. Swanson

57 Cal. App. 5th 604 (Ca. App. 2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D and Anthony Chapple robbed four individuals at gunpoint at a gas station. One of the victims, Ruben Garcia, worked at the gas station. The other victims were Garcia's wife Rosa, his brother, and a female customer. D and Chapple forced the victims into a storage room where they took Rosa's jewelry and purse and several cartons of cigarettes. D, who had been told that Rosa was pregnant, grabbed her by the hair and dragged her into the front office. He told her he would kill her if she did not open the safe. After Rosa stated that she did not have the keys to the safe, D shoved her toward the ground. When Garcia tried to stop D, Chapple threatened to shoot Garcia's brother. Meanwhile, the two assailants emptied the cash register and took all of the money that Garcia had in his wallet. D pointed his gun at Garcia and Rosa and fired one shot, causing Rosa to scream. Garcia grabbed his gun from the desk drawer, loaded it, and gave chase. He testified at trial that he believed Rosa had been shot and was afraid that Ds would return to the gas station and kill the rest of them. Garcia fired two shots in their direction. He then saw Chapple stumble, but thereafter lost sight of both men. Someone in the alley fired a shot at him, and he fired back once to frighten the shooter. Chapple died as a result of two bullet wounds inflicted by Garcia. D claimed that Garcia unreasonably responded to the situation by shooting at him and Chapple. D was convicted of first-degree murder and four counts of second-degree robbery (§ 211), and the jury found that he used a firearm to commit the crimes. D was sentenced to state prison for 32 years to life. The initial conviction was affirmed in that D not only assaulted Garcia's pregnant wife but also gratuitously shot at the couple, conduct that was unnecessary to the underlying robbery. From such needless acts of violence, the jury could conclude that Garcia reasonably believed the assailants might return to kill the victims even though they appeared to have fled, and killed Chapple in a “reasonable response to D's provocative conduct. In 2018, the Legislature enacted section 1170.95, which establishes a procedure by which an individual convicted of murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or felony-murder rule can seek vacation of that conviction and resentencing. D filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging he was eligible for relief pursuant to section 1170.95 because he was found guilty of first-degree murder under the felony-murder rule. The court denied D relief because he was convicted under the provocative act doctrine, not the natural and probable consequences doctrine or felony murder rule. This appeal resulted.