BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — In October, 23ABC first brought you the story of Doris Shotwell and her son Cedric Struggs, a man who has been in jail for more than 40 years on a felony murder conviction.
According to court documents, Cedric Struggs and two other men robbed a Hudson Oil gas station that used to stand near the corner of Union Avenue and Brundage Lane in Bakersfield. As they left, one of the men fired a gun and killed someone, but court documents are clear that the shooter was not Struggs.
At the time, California law dictated that anyone involved with committing a crime where another person was killed could be charged with the same thing as the person who directly caused the death: felony murder. Under that law, Cedric Struggs was found guilty of first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and robbery back in 1981.
Under California Senate Bill 1437, enacted in 2019, the law was changed to narrow down the circumstances under which a person can be charged with felony murder, including that they must have actually been the one to have caused the death.
After this change in the law, Shotwell expresses frustration as to why her son is still in jail.
"I don't know why they want to keep holding him, because if that was their son, they wouldn't want them to be in there 42 years and he didn't have a gun," said Shotwell.
Cedric Struggs himself says it goes even further than not being the one with the gun. Struggs says he wasn't present at all.
"I was either at Bakersfield, either at my mom's, or at Hanford, California," Struggs says when asked where he was at the time of the robbery.
Struggs says that when he was arrested, it wasn't even for the robbery.
"Sales of marijuana," said Struggs when asked what he understood were his initial charges. "I was in the county jail and detectives pulled me out, and I didn't know that they pulled Defendant 1 out, Phillip Carter. I didn't know that, and they took us to the police station and interrogate us for the murder, and I denied it like always and I gave my alibi."
Struggs says a co-defendant and a witness in the case told investigators he was involved with the robbery. However, even if he had been there, which he denies, according to Kern County District Attorney Joseph Kinzel, court documents still show that someone else fired the gun, not Struggs.
"Mr. Struggs' case is one in which in July of 1980, it was alleged and proven at trial that he and two other conspirators went and committed a robbery of two employees at a gas station," described Kinzel. "They went in and confronted 48-year-old Alfred Dishman. Not Struggs, but one of his co-participants produced a firearm and shot Mr. Dishman in the chest and killed him."
Kinzel confirms that under California law prior to the enactment of SB 1437, anyone who participates in committing a felony where anyone is killed can be held responsible for that murder even if they didn't pull the trigger, which is how Struggs ended up behind bars.
But with the new law in place, Struggs is hoping to be released.
"I want the District Attorney and the judge to go through the evidence and see that I wasn't a major participant or I wasn't reckless indifferent to human life, because that's the hearing that they is basing it on," said Struggs. "They not basing it on nothing else that I already presented to you. It's just on the murder, period, that's it. So I'm hoping the judge see that I wasn't, and he would set a hearing in the next few days and release me."
Kinzel says that even without the change in the law, Struggs could have already been out on parole, but according to Kinzel, he has not shown signs of rehabilitation.
"In this case, Mr. Struggs became eligible for parole originally in 2004, but he has continually been denied paroled because of a series of new crimes, offenses, rules violations that have occurred while he's been in prison," said Kinzel, "So he's been denied parole several times leading up to now based on the Department of Corrections finding him to be a high risk of future violence."
Struggs acknowledges that he did have problems with the other inmates when he first got to prison, but says he's been doing better.
"The last 10 years I've been clean, no violence whatsoever, and the District Attorney still denied my parole based on that, but I say that I've been doing pretty good," said Struggs.
Although parole may be beside the point if the change in the law is brought to bear on the case. Struggs will be in court Tuesday for a hearing based solely on the original charges stemming from the robbery-murder.
"He's not being considered for parole," said Kinzel. "If he cannot be convicted of murder based on the change in the law, then his murder sentence would be vacated and he would be sentenced to simply the robbery, for which he's done ample time if that was his only charge, and he would likely be released."
"Oh man, it's a miracle. It would be," Struggs says when asked how he thinks he will react if the hearing finds that he should be freed. "It's a good second chance, a right second chance. I'm an older guy and it… just, man. It would be a blessing just to hug my mom and see my mom."
Struggs' next hearing is set for Tuesday, November 29 beginning at 11:00 am. 23ABC will continue to follow this case and bring you the latest updates as soon as they become available.
Read the court documents in full:
CA v. Cedric Struggs by on Scribd
CA v. Cedric Struggs by on Scribd
