The California Supreme Court will review the case of convicted murderer David Bartlett Seidel. Seidel was convicted in 1994 of the 1991 murder of Hesperia Pawn Shop owner Harvey Wolcott and customer Donald Howie.
Seidel was convicted on two counts of murder, one count of robbery and one count of burglary.
He is serving time at California State Prison, Solano, between San Francisco and Sacramento.
In 2022, Seidel petitioned to be resentenced under Penal Code Section 1172.6. The section provides retroactive relief for people convicted of murder under a now-defunct natural and probable consequences theory. Under that theory, a person who commits a crime that would naturally result in murder, and which did result in murder, could be convicted of murder, even if a co-defendant was the actual murderer.
In this case, Seidel argued that he had robbed the pawn shop with four other men, and that his 1994 jury was not asked whether he himself was the murderer.
San Bernardino Superior Judge John Vander Feer denied his petition, and Seidel appealed.
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed Vander Feer’s decision on July 3.
The appellate ruling
Their ruling, which does not set precedent, found that the legislature removed the natural and probable consequences theory to align a defendant’s conviction with their intent. They cited the 2020 case People v. Roldan: “A primary purpose of Senate Bill 1437 was to align a person’s culpability for murder with his or her [intent]. To effectuate that purpose, Senate Bill 1437 amended…Section 188 to state that ‘(m)alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.’”
The appellate ruling said that the jury convicted Seidel of the lying-in-wait special circumstance. That circumstance requires a jury finding that Seidel had intended to kill, the ruling said. Because Seidel had intended to kill before the crime, even if he was not the killer, he could not find relief under Section 1172.6, the ruling said.
“In short, we conclude that the purpose of Senate Bill 1437 was not to change the (guilty act) necessary to commit felony murder as an aider and abettor acting with the intent to kill. Rather, its purpose ‘was to align a person’s culpability for murder with his or her (intent),’” the appellate ruling said, quoting Roldan again.
“Moreover, courts have consistently held that a true finding on the special circumstance allegation—proof of lying in wait—reflects a conclusion defendant killed with premeditation and deliberation,” the ruling continued.
The Supreme Court defined the question before them as follows: “Did the trial court correctly deny defendant’s Penal Code Section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that the (guilty act) of first degree felony murder requires that a defendant who is not the actual killer need only aid in the underlying felony and not in the killing itself?”
The robbery
The appellate opinion established Seidel’s testimony and the facts of the crime. Seidel was 17 years old in 1991, and had borrowed guns from his father to impress two friends at a party. One of those friends was David Gilbert, Seidel testified. Those friends refused to give the guns back to Seidel, unless he traded them for other firearms, according to Seidel’s testimony. Seidel was afraid to go to the police, believing it would jeopardize his relationship with his father, a sheriff’s deputy.
He decided to rob the pawn shop to steal guns for trade.
He was known to Wolcott, the pawn shop owner. Seidel’s father helped build racks at the business.
Seidel wore his letterman’s jacket—with his name on the back—during the robbery. He bought a gun and bullets, while his four accomplices, including Gilbert, committed the robbery, he claimed.
Gilbert’s employer shows he was working at the time of the robbery. Seidel claimed Gilbert shot the victims. Seidel admitted to bringing a gun, saying “When you’re going to do a robbery, you need to take a gun,” but denied having an intent to kill.
Joshua Allen, Seidel’s friend, testified that Seidel admitted to shooting Wolcott and the customer. Allen also testified that Seidel had modified the murder weapon, a .22 caliber rifle with a sawed off barrel and with the stock removed.
Seidel was arrested in 1992, after a firearm stolen from the shop was used in a different shooting and police traced the weapon back to Seidel.
San Bernardino Superior Judge John Vander Feer denied Seidel’s request.
Cliff Gardner, of his own firm and under appointment, represented Seidel on his appeal.
Deputy Attorneys General A. Natasha Cortina, Lynne McGinnis and Alan Amann argued for the People.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, Justice Art McKinster wrote the opinion, which was joined by Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez. Appellate Judge Frank Menetrez wrote a concurring opinion.
Superior Court Case No. VCR6694
Appellate Case No. E080232
Supreme Court Case No. 24-178
Read the appellate ruling here.
