Three men at San Quentin are serving life sentences for murders they did not commit. They've been incarcerated a combined 90 years.

These men were sentenced under California's felony-murder rule. It's based on an archaic legal doctrine that says engaging in certain illegal behaviors -- regardless of intent -- requires assuming full responsibility if a death occurs. The "natural and probable consequences doctrine" was repealed in 2019 with the passage of California Senate Bill 1437.

"My bill changed California's law so people can no longer be convicted of murder if they were not the actual killer," state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, wrote in a statement for this story.

"California's old felony-murder law was patently unfair and badly needed reform," Skinner wrote. "No one should be convicted of murder if they didn't commit the murder or direct the murder to happen."

But so far the three San Quentin men have not found relief.

In 1991, at age 22, James Brownlee was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 16 years to life. He was not the killer. The killer, Freddie Osborn, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, served three years, and left prison on parole in 1994.

Brownlee, now 55, is a self-taught litigator and has doggedly challenged his sentence. "I did my own filings -- everything," he said. Forty-eight court hearings have been held on his case.

Brownlee's incarceration as a young man, and his current age, also make him eligible for release under state youth offender and elderly prisoner laws. But his initial petition in 2017 was denied, along with its appeal, as was another petition under SB 1437. He appealed again.

According to Brownlee, an assistant attorney general agreed he was convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, which entitles him to relief.

In May 2022, the appellate court agreed and reversed Brownlee's original conviction. The case was sent back to San Joaquin County Superior Court, along with his petition filed under SB 1437. A new hearing is scheduled for late January, Brownlee said.

"From the time they reversed it, they've been playing with me," Brownlee said. "I thought they were going to do the right thing, but they still won't."

"My office is aware of some lower courts having wrongly denied petitions under SB 1437, despite clear guidance from the California Supreme Court," Skinner wrote. "In fact, I recently requested that the California Supreme Court take up a case under SB 1437 because a lower court had denied a person resentencing, even though it was readily apparent from the facts at trial and at the re-sentencing hearing that the petitioner was not a major participant, did not act with reckless indifference to human life, and should have been granted relief."

Charles Sabbath, 60, has been incarcerated for 34 years. He was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder in Orange County and sentenced under the old felony-murder rule.

"Thirty years later, the law changed," Sabbath said.

He petitioned for resentencing under SB 1437. However, the court found that -- while Sabbath was not directly involved in the murders -- he "was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life," one of the law's exceptions.

Sabbath argues the jury in his original case, which found some related alleged special circumstances "not true," by implication did not see him as acting with reckless indifference.

"He's undoing something the jury has already decided," Sabbath said of the judge's decision. "The judge abused his authority. That's my whole argument."

The law reads: "If there was a prior finding by a court or jury that the petitioner did not act with reckless indifference to human life or was not a major participant in the felony, the court shall vacate the petitioner's conviction and resentence the petitioner."

Miguel Sifuentes, 44, was not the actual killer of an Alameda County deputy sheriff in 1998. He took part in a robbery with two co-defendants that led to the deputy's death. Sifuentes was tried, convicted and sentenced to life under the old law. After passage of SB 1437, he filed a petition for resentencing. It was denied, even though there was a "prior finding" by a jury.

In its denial, the court pointed to another exception lawmakers wrote into SB 1437 where "the victim was a peace officer who was killed in the course of performing his or her duties where the defendant knew or should reasonably have known the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties."

Sifuentes does not deny his participation in the robbery. "I'm mindful that all of my efforts today, including petitions, continue to impact the survivors," he said. "I have a responsibility to act in a way that doesn't cause further harm."

Mike Romano, a Stanford University law professor, was asked recently about some of these SB 1437 legal scenarios during a lecture on the history of criminal law reform in California.

"(The courts) are not saying the law doesn't exist," Romano said. "They're just saying it's a factual disagreement."

Romano said fair implementation of new laws is challenging. "There was a time we would all cheer after a new sentencing law passed," he added.

"Overall, I believe SB 1437 has worked well," Skinner wrote. "Between January 2019 and June 2023, more than 800 people have been granted relief under SB 1437, many of whom were able to return home."

Both Brownlee and Sabbath are Black; Sifuentes is Latino. According to the Office of the State Public Defender, 88% of people resentenced under SB 1437 were people of color, with Black people comprising the largest share at 40%.

This story, from Bay City News Service, was originally published on the Prison Journalism Project.