California Legal Brief

The Rule of Garner v. California Victim Compensation Board is that a murder conviction that was valid under the law in effect at the time of trial is not "erroneous" within the meaning of Penal Code section 4900, under circumstances where the Legislature subsequently changed the definition of murder and the conviction was vacated under Penal Code section 1172.6 based on the new definition.

Appeal from judgment after denial of writ of mandate in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Christopher Garner — the convicted defendant who was released from prison after his murder conviction was vacated under Penal Code section 1172.6 following changes to murder law by Senate Bill No. 1437.

Defendant Respondent was California Victim Compensation Board — the state agency responsible for processing compensation claims from erroneously imprisoned individuals.

The suit sounded in administrative law/mandamus seeking compensation for erroneous imprisonment. No cross-claims were apparent.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that in 2007, Garner was convicted of murder under an implied malice theory. In 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437, which redefined murder. In 2019, Garner's murder conviction was vacated under Penal Code section 1172.6 and he was resentenced and released from prison. Garner then sought compensation under Penal Code section 4900 for the time he spent imprisoned beyond his revised sentence, claiming he was "innocent" under the current definition of murder. The Board denied his application, finding he failed to allege innocence under the law in effect at the time of his 2007 conviction.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Garner's petition for writ of mandate, ruling that the Board correctly interpreted section 4900 as requiring innocence under the law in effect at the time of conviction, and that California Code of Regulations section 642 was a valid regulation allowing dismissal of legally insufficient claims.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Does Penal Code section 4900 require a claimant to establish innocence under the law in effect at the time of conviction, or under current law? 2. Is California Code of Regulations section 642, which allows dismissal of section 4900 claims without a hearing when they fail to state a legally cognizable claim, a valid regulation?

The Appellate Court held that section 4900 requires an "erroneous conviction," and a conviction that was valid under the law in effect at the time of trial is not rendered erroneous simply because the Legislature later changed the law. The court also held that California Code of Regulations section 642 is a valid regulation that does not conflict with the statutory scheme.

The case is inapplicable when the original conviction was actually erroneous under the law in effect at the time of conviction, or when a claimant can establish factual innocence under the law that existed when the crime was committed.

The case leaves open whether other types of legal changes might render a conviction "erroneous" within the meaning of section 4900, and whether different factual scenarios involving vacated convictions might support compensation claims.