{"id":106,"date":"2026-04-07T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=106"},"modified":"2026-04-07T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-player-not-true-firearm-finding-collateral-estoppel-section-1172-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=106","title":{"rendered":"People v. Player \u2014 Jury’s Not-True Firearm Findings Do Not Collaterally Estop Resentencing Court from Finding Defendant Was Actual Killer"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Player<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-07<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B342239<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Penal Code section 1172.6; resentencing; collateral estoppel; not-true firearm enhancement findings; People v. Santamaria; actual killer; major participant<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In 1981, two men robbed Toney Lewis and Carolyn Spence in a Denny’s parking lot. The gunman shot and killed Lewis after taking his belongings and van. Lavell Player was convicted of first degree murder and other offenses. The jury found not true allegations that Player personally used a firearm and rejected a robbery special circumstance that, as instructed, required a finding that Player personally killed the victim.<\/p>\n

Decades later, Player petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95), the statute enacted to allow defendants previously convicted under broad felony murder or natural and probable consequences theories to seek relief in light of California’s narrowed murder liability rules. To deny resentencing, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner remained guilty of murder under current law.<\/p>\n

On Player’s earlier appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the resentencing court’s finding that Player aided and abetted the murder was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded for consideration of two alternative theories: that Player was the actual killer, or that he was a major participant in the underlying robbery acting with reckless indifference to human life. After an evidentiary hearing on remand, the resentencing court found both alternative theories proven beyond a reasonable doubt and again denied the petition. Player appealed, arguing among other things that the original jury’s not-true findings on the firearm and special circumstance allegations collaterally estopped the resentencing court from finding he was the actual killer.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division One, affirmed. The court held that the original jury’s not-true findings did not collaterally estop the resentencing court from finding that Player was the actual killer, applying the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Santamaria. Under Santamaria, a not-true finding on a personal firearm use enhancement is not equivalent to an affirmative finding that the defendant did not personally use a firearm or did not personally kill. The jury may simply have concluded the prosecution failed to prove the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt, leaving the underlying factual question open.<\/p>\n

The court agreed with People v. Hart, a 2025 decision from the Fourth District that applied Santamaria to section 1172.6 proceedings, and it disagreed with earlier appellate opinions that gave preclusive effect to not-true findings in resentencing cases. Because weapon use is not an “ultimate fact” of murder, collateral estoppel cannot rest on a jury’s rejection of an enhancement allegation alone.<\/p>\n

Substantial evidence also supported the resentencing court’s finding that Player was the actual killer. Although witness identifications shifted over time and a co-perpetrator’s testimony was given in exchange for a plea deal, the resentencing court was entitled to weigh the evidence and resolve the credibility issues. The court declined to reach the alternative major participant finding because the actual-killer determination alone supported denial of resentencing.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n