In re Parrish

California Court of Appeal Nov 27, 2019 No. B292582Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner's felony murder conviction and sentence were constitutional because he was a major participant in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

Issues

Whether the petitioner's felony murder conviction and sentence violate the Eighth Amendment under the standards set forth in People v. Banks and People v. Clark.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Parrish was a major participant in the robbery and showed reckless indifference to human life, so we deny his habeas corpus petition.”

“The second requirement thus demands proof Parrish acted with reckless disregard for human life.”

Filed 11/27/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re B292582

KAHEAL JEVON PARRISH (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA260528) On Habeas Corpus.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Kathleen Kennedy, Judge. Petition denied. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Zee Rodriguez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent. ____________________

This habeas corpus petition requires us to assay culpability for a 2004 murder. The felony murder doctrine can saddle a person with a murder conviction even when that person was not the main killer. Here, for instance, Kahael Jevon Parrish was one of three who, in 2004, went to rob a market. Parrish had no gun, but both his partners did. One fired a deadly shot into a customer’s head. Parrish pulled no trigger, but a jury convicted Parrish of felony murder. The trial court imposed life in prison without parole. Was that unconstitutionally harsh? We conclude it was not. Parrish was a major participant in the robbery and showed reckless indifference to human life, so we deny his habeas corpus petition. Code references are to the Penal Code. I We review the record to see if rational jurors could have found the elements of the special circumstances allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. We view evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution. (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 610 (Clark).) In this light, the facts are as follows. Three men planned to rob a market. The three were Parrish, Earl Childs, and Zack Gaines. Parrish and Gaines reconnoitered the market the day before the robbery. (People v. Parrish (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 263, 267, 276 & fn. 2 (Parrish).) The deadly day was February 4, 2004. Parrish drove Childs and Gaines to the market. Parrish had given Gaines a .380 handgun to use, and Parrish knew Gaines carried it. Parrish also knew Childs had a gun. Parrish and Childs entered the market and walked around. Gaines came in to complain they were taking too long. Childs drew his gun, announced the robbery, and told Parrish to jump over a counter to search an employee for weapons. Parrish did that. Parrish saw the store

In re Parrish

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WILEY, J.

BIGELOW, P. J.

GRIMES, J.

AI Brief