California v. Harden
Annotate this CaseIn 2001, a jury convicted defendant-appellant Yolanda Harden of murdering 85-year-old Alfred P. during a residential burglary and robbery. The Court of Appeal affirmed her conviction of first degree murder with special circumstances in a partially published opinion. Among other things, the previous case rejected a claim of instructional error because there was no evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that Harden was an aider and abettor. "Harden I" concluded, “a rational jury could not reasonably infer that . . . any person other than Harden[] was Alfred’s actual killer.” Twenty years later, Harden claims she did not kill anyone, but merely “crept in and stole” property, Harden filed a petition to vacate her conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95. The trial court, which did not have the benefit of the California Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in California v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021), denied the petition on the grounds that her claim was “completely inconsistent” with the facts recited in Harden I. The Court of Appeal affirmed, but on slightly different reasoning. In reviewing the record of conviction at the prima facie stage, a trial court was not permitted to engage in “ ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ” The relevant inquiry at this stage was not whether factual findings recited in the prior appellate opinion were inconsistent with the petitioner’s claims. "Rather, the key question is whether legal determinations in the prior opinion refute those claims as a matter of law." The Court found Harden I conclusively established as law of the case that Harden’s first degree murder conviction was based on a theory that she was the actual killer. Because, as the actual killer, she would still be convicted of first degree murder even under recent amendments to the murder statutes that narrowed liability for the crime, the trial court correctly denied her 1170.95 petition without issuing an order to show cause.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.