WPC  Zګ0i^5h\F>'LjM{ݧ0snQ(i)F&A/3 #9j~t6-&u>!}堩D4ߢ uXh8o٧~{hP(J5E&D'-=23$MkVucRˬZHsߺ&" vve]Ӽgg9M/yR#6B%ga=2N)] #U,NY % 0Yw4 - m/NFU>HU>b* 0N DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 0u" D5 B^  0u ASj 0D HP LaserJet 6L/LAPTOP-FDAP/Session 24,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,wf2:i+003|xU\  `&Times New Roman%\  `&Times New Roman- -mailto:jboc@fdap.org(O$ ү"XXUSUS.,  _   NotetoAttorneys: 󀀀Thissamplesubstantiveargumentisintendedforinsertionina  motiontorecallthe_remittitur_Ԁorahabeaspetitionseekingtoreopenanappealor  otherwiseraiseaHowardclaiminacasewhichhasalreadybecomefinal.(Seethe  accompanyingsamplemotiontorecallthe_remittitur_,postedon_ADI_s&_FDAP_sweb  sites.)Asdrafted,thisargumentpresumesthatanearliersectionofthemotionor  petitionhasalreadysummarizedtheholdingofPeoplev.Howard(2005)34XXCal.4th#XXY#  1129,andhasalsoexplainedwhythisclarificationofsubstantivehomicidelawisfully  retroactiveandcognizableeitherviarecallingthe_remittitur_Ԁorthroughahabeas  petition.(SeePeoplev._Mutch_(1971)4XXCal.3d#XX#Ԁ389,andotherauthoritiesdiscussedinthe  samplemotion.)Ifthisargumentisbeingusedina standalonebrief(e.g.,a    supplementalbrieffollowingthereinstatementoftheappeal),counselwillneedto    includeanintroductorysectioncoveringthosesubjects(whichcanbeadaptedfromthe    samplemotion).    Thepurposeofthissubstantiveargumentis:(1)toaddressfederaldueprocess  implicationsofapost_affirmance_Ԁdecisionwhichrevealsthatappellantsconductdoes  notmeettheelementsofmurder(_Fiore_Ԁv.White,infra);and(2)toexplainthe  appropriateprejudiceframeworkwherethecasewenttothejuryonbothalegally  invalidtheory(_Veh_.CodeXX#XX #Ԁ2800.2asfelonymurderpredicate)andonanalternative  legallypermissibletheory(e.g.,impliedmalice).(M3ү$ !XXUSUS.,  WWWW)!dxdx d$2 (M3ү$ !XXUSUS.,  UVE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  !XXUSUS.,  _ 8dd8      SAMPLESUBSTANTIVEHOWARDARGUMENT  ByJ.BradleyOConnell,StaffAttorney,FirstDist.AppellateProject,4 O  5  jboc@fdap.org6cOw  7 ##Ԁ  March2005   +_f2"`x  `E|ttEf_ (#(#                      (#(#  0  BECAUSEHOWARDESTABLISHESTHATTHEFELONYMURDER  THEORYWASUNAUTHORIZED,DUEPROCESSPRINCIPLESREQUIRE  REVERSALOFAPPELLANTSMURDERCONVICTION.  (#(# w0  A.0` (#(#AConvictiononanUnauthorizedLegalTheoryViolatesDueProcess. "` (#` (#     Asdiscussedintheprecedingsection,appellantwastriedonafelonymurdertheory. $  ЀThecourtinstructedonVehicleCodesection2800.2(recklessevasionofapursuingofficer) "&r!" asapredicatefelonyforseconddegreefelonymurder.AlthoughthisCourtupheldthose '"$ instructionsandaffirmedappellantsconvictionondirectappeal,theSupremeCourtsnew ")r$& decisioninHowardestablishesthatthisfelonymurdertheorywasunauthorizedunder *%( Californialaw.Section2800.2doesnotrepresentan inherentlydangerousfelonyinthe ",r'*  abstractbecausetherearewaysofviolatingthestatutewhichdonotendangerhumanlife. -(,  Becausetheoffenseisnot inherentlydangerous,itcannotlawfullyserveasafelony  murderpredicate.(Peoplev.Howard(2005)34XXCal.4th#XX #Ԁ1129,11361139.) 0   InviewofHoward,thesubmissionofthesection2800.2felonymurdertheorywas  plainlyerroneousunderCalifornialaw.Justasclearly,thoseinstructionsalsorepresented 0  federalconstitutionalerror.Submissionofanunauthorizedfelonymurdertheoryviolates   dueprocessprinciplesbyallowingaconvictiononalegallynonexistenttheory( _Suniga_Ԁv. 0   _Bunnell_# $ #(9thCir.1993)998F.2d664,669)anddeprivesadefendantofhisSixthAmendment   righttojurydeterminationofmaliceaforethought.(Seegenerally, _Mullaney_Ԁv.Wilbur 0  (1975)421U.S.684;UnitedStatesv._Gaudin_(1995)515U.S.506[righttojury   determinationofeveryelement]# #;see,e.g.,Peoplev.Jones(2000)82_Cal.App_.4th663,670; 0   Peoplev.Sanchez(2001)# 6# 86_Cal.App_.4th970,980;# # Peoplev.# # Ԁ# `# Smith# # Ԁ(1998)62_Cal.App_.4th  1233,1238# #; ԀPeoplev.# # ԀBaker(1999)74# #_Cal.App_.4th243,253[eachfindingfederal 0 constitutionalerrorinsubmissionofinvalidfelonymurderpredicateoffenses].)    Mostsignificantlyforpresentpurposes,aconvictiononanunauthorizedground 0 violatesdueprocess, evenwhenthedecisionrecognizingtheillegalityofthetheoryisnot  issueduntilafterthedefendantsconvictionhasbecome final. 󀀀(_Fiore_Ԁv.White(2001) 6 531U.S.225.)Muchasinthiscase,thePennsylvaniaappellatecourthadapprovedthe    theoryonwhich_Fiore_Ԁwastriedandhadaffirmedhisconviction,andthePennsylvania <" SupremeCourthaddeniedreview.Butthreeyearslater,inadifferentcase,thePennsylvania  $ SupremeCourtdisapprovedthattheoryandheldthatsimilarconduct(deviatingfromthe