{"id":250,"date":"2026-04-29T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=250"},"modified":"2026-04-29T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T12:00:00","slug":"garner-victim-compensation-board-section-1172-6-not-erroneous-conviction-section-4900","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=250","title":{"rendered":"Garner v. California Victim Compensation Board \u2014 Vacatur Under Section 1172.6 Resentencing Statute Does Not Establish “Erroneous Conviction” Required for Compensation Under Section 4900"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Garner v. California Victim Compensation Board<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-29<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B330418<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Penal Code section 4900; erroneous conviction compensation; Penal Code section 1172.6; Senate Bill 1437; California Victim Compensation Board<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In 2007, Christopher Garner was convicted of first degree murder, robbery, and burglary in connection with a 2006 incident in which Garner drove two men to Blake Crawford’s home to steal marijuana. One of the men entered the home, took the marijuana, and shot Crawford to death. Garner waited in the car. Garner was convicted on theories that included implied malice murder, and he was sentenced to 26 years to life.<\/p>\n

In 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1437, which significantly narrowed California’s murder liability rules and effectively abolished some prior theories of accomplice liability for murder. Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95) created a procedure for defendants previously convicted under such broader theories to seek vacatur if the prosecution cannot prove they remain guilty of murder under current law.<\/p>\n

A court vacated Garner’s murder conviction under section 1172.6, resentenced him to a prison term about eight years shorter than he had already served, and ordered him released. Garner then applied to the California Victim Compensation Board for compensation under Penal Code section 4900, which provides compensation for inmates who are exonerated of their crimes. The Board denied the application, finding that Garner had not alleged he was innocent of murder as the crime was defined in 2007. The trial court denied Garner’s writ petition challenging the denial. Garner appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division One, affirmed. The court held that the vacatur of Garner’s murder conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6 did not establish that his original 2007 conviction was “erroneous” within the meaning of Penal Code section 4900, which is a prerequisite for compensation by the Victim Compensation Board.<\/p>\n

Section 4900 provides compensation for persons whose convictions were erroneous, meaning they were wrongly convicted of crimes they did not commit. Senate Bill 1437’s prospective redefinition of murder in 2019 was a legislative act of lenity, not a determination that the prior law was wrong or that prior convictions were erroneous. Garner’s 2007 conviction was valid under the law as it existed at the time. The fact that he could obtain vacatur under section 1172.6’s narrow legislative-grace mechanism does not transform that conviction into an erroneous one for purposes of compensation.<\/p>\n

The court explained that section 4900 compensation is reserved for individuals who establish actual innocence of the original crime, not for those whose convictions are vacated based on a change in the law. The state’s act of providing relief to defendants caught by overbroad murder theories does not commit the state to compensating them as if they had been wrongly convicted from the beginning.<\/p>\n

The court also rejected Garner’s challenge to California Code of Regulations title 2, section 642, which creates a motion-to-dismiss procedure for section 4900 applications. Garner did not establish that the regulation was inconsistent with the authorizing statute or unnecessary for carrying out the Board’s mandate. The regulation properly allowed the Board to dismiss applications that fail to state a legally cognizable claim before requiring full evidentiary proceedings.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n