Appeal of Murder Conviction Rejected by Justices : Law: State Supreme Court lets stand earlier decision. Killer’s brother had claimed responsibility for the crime.

The California Supreme Court, acting in a case that bitterly split a state appellate court, rejected an appeal Thursday from a convicted murderer whose brother claimed responsibility for the killing.

In a brief order, the justices let stand a 2-1 ruling last June by a Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upholding the second-degree murder conviction of Sheldon Sanders, 24, for the death of Norman Gregory, 18, in a dispute involving two families in 1985.

Sanders’ brother, Xavier Sanders, 27, had told lawyers, family members and others that he was guilty in the slaying. He signed a sworn declaration saying he shot Gregory inadvertently when he, Sheldon Sanders and a third brother confronted the victim at his Compton home.

However, at a hearing ordered by the appeal court last year, Xavier Sanders refused to admit he did the shooting and instead invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Sheldon Sanders was convicted after a first trial ended in a deadlocked jury. He was sentenced to a term of 17 years to life in prison.

In their appeal to the state Supreme Court, his attorneys contended Sheldon’s trial lawyer improperly failed to pursue Xavier’s admissions of guilt--and that it was “highly likely” an innocent man had been convicted.

The attorneys acknowledged that reviewing courts must look for legal error in a trial, rather than weigh innocence or guilt, which is the task of the trial jury. But this case was so compelling the high court should examine the facts “so that faith in our system of justice is maintained,” the lawyers said in their petition to the justices.

Thursday’s high court order denying review was signed by Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, with Justice Joyce L. Kennard the only one voting to hear the case.

R. Charles Johnson of San Anselmo, an attorney representing Sheldon Sanders in his appeal, expressed disappointment and said it was possible the case would be taken to the federal courts. “This seems a clear-cut example of a young man who is probably innocent and didn’t get a chance to take his best shot at trial,” Johnson said.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Sharon Wooden welcomed Thursday’s action, saying the court had done “the right thing” in turning down Sheldon Sanders’ appeal. There was strong testimony supporting Sheldon’s guilt, while Xavier’s claims lacked credibility, she said.

Wooden noted that even if Sheldon Sanders were to gain an acquittal, prosecuting his brother would still be very difficult, despite his admissions. “You can’t prosecute someone just on an alleged confession--you’ve got to have something more,” she said. “And what’s to stop Xavier from coming back a year from now and saying, ‘I just said that to get my brother off’ ”?

The appeal court ruling was marked by an unusually sharp exchange between the court majority and the dissenter, with each side accusing the other of distorting the facts.

Appellate Justice Fred Woods, joined by Justice Mildred Lillie, rejected Sheldon Sanders’ contention that he deserved a new trial because his trial attorney improperly failed to call Xavier Sanders to testify he shot Gregory.

The panel upheld findings by a hearing judge that branded as “speculative” claims that the attorney, Philip Jefferson, performed incompetently. The lawyer did not testify at the hearing and, according to the State Bar, was disbarred last April.

Woods said Jefferson might well have had good tactical reasons for not calling Xavier Sanders to testify.

In dissent, Appellate Justice Earl Johnson Jr. accused the majority of relying on speculation to save Sheldon Sanders’ conviction and of ignoring that three of five eyewitnesses had identified Xavier as the triggerman.

This was not an ordinary appeal testing only the procedural fairness of a trial, Johnson argued, but one of those “rare cases” where the defendant’s innocence was genuinely in question.