On May 4, 2026, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Morris, S284751, and the ruling could change the future for thousands of people serving life sentences in California prisons under the old felony murder rule.
If you have a loved one convicted of first degree murder as an aider and abettor, where they were not the actual killer, this decision matters. Here is what happened, what the Court ruled, and what it means going forward.
The Background
The case involved a 1987 home invasion in Orange County. Two men robbed a couple inside their condominium. One of the men shot and killed the boyfriend. Both men raped the girlfriend. Decades later, DNA evidence connected Richard Morris, Jr. to the sexual assault, and he was convicted in 2013 of first degree murder, robbery, rape, and a financial gain special circumstance. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
The record never established which of the two men actually pulled the trigger.
Why Senate Bill 1437 Changed Everything
Under the old felony murder rule in California, anyone who participated in a serious felony, like robbery or burglary, could be convicted of murder if a death occurred during that felony. Prosecutors did not have to prove the defendant intended to kill or even knew a killing would happen. Participation in the underlying felony alone was enough.
Senate Bill 1437, passed in 2018, narrowed that rule significantly. Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e) now limits felony murder liability to three categories of people:
The actual killer.
A person who, with intent to kill, aided or abetted the actual killer in the commission of first degree murder.
A major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Penal Code section 1172.6 then created a process for people convicted under the old felony murder rule to petition for resentencing under the new law.
The Question in Morris
The fight in Morris was over the second category. When the statute says a non-killer must aid the actual killer “in the commission of murder in the first degree,” what does that actually mean?
The Attorney General argued it was enough that Morris helped commit the underlying robbery and rape, since those felonies are what made the killing first degree murder.
Morris argued the statute means what it says. To aid the actual killer in the commission of murder, you must aid in the lethal act itself, not just the underlying felony.
What the Supreme Court Held
The California Supreme Court sided with Morris.
Writing for the majority, Justice Groban held that section 189, subdivision (e)(2) requires proof that the non-killer aided or abetted the actual killer in the lethal act itself, and not just the underlying felony. The Court explained that the plain meaning of “aiding the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree” is assisting the killer in the killing.
The Court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884, explaining that Senate Bill 1437 abrogated the legal premise Dickey was built on.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case so Morris can be reconsidered for a section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing.
Why This Matters
This decision resolves a split between the Courts of Appeal that has been brewing for years. Morris now establishes a statewide rule.
For people currently serving sentences under the old felony murder rule, this means the bar has moved. A non-killer cannot be convicted of first degree murder under section 189, subdivision (e)(2) just because they participated in the robbery, burglary, or other felony where someone happened to die. The prosecution must prove the defendant intended to kill and assisted the killer in the actual killing.
This ruling could reopen the door for thousands of inmates whose section 1172.6 petitions, or whose Banks and Clark petitions, were denied based on the broader interpretation that the Supreme Court has now rejected. People who were told they did not qualify before may qualify now.
Who Should Pay Attention
You should pay close attention to People v. Morris if you or a loved one:
- Was convicted of first degree felony murder as an aider and abettor.
- Was not the actual killer in the underlying case.
- Filed a section 1172.6 petition that was denied at the prima facie stage.
- Was denied resentencing under People v. Banks or People v. Clark
- Is still within the window to file or refile a petition for resentencing.
This is a meaningful shift in California murder law, and the analysis is fact-specific. Every case has its own record of conviction, jury instructions, and special circumstance findings that affect whether Morris applies.
Talk to a California Criminal Appellate Attorney
If you believe People v. Morris may impact your case or a loved one’s case, do not wait. Resentencing petitions have procedural rules and timelines, and the strength of any petition depends on a careful review of the record of conviction.
At Mines Law Firm, we represent clients throughout California in resentencing petitions, post-conviction relief, and complex criminal appeals. We can review the record, evaluate whether Morris applies, and advise you on the right path forward.
Mines Law Firm468 North Camden Drive, Suite 200Beverly Hills, CA 90210Phone: 888-700-0093Fax: 323-597-3326Website: www.themineslawfirm.com
***
This blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship.