51 Cal.App.5th 207
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2006 Malik Alaybue pleaded no contest to two counts of second‑degree murder and two counts of attempted murder and admitted gang enhancements; he received concurrent 15‑to‑life terms for murder and concurrent determinate terms for attempted murder.
- In January 2019 Alaybue petitioned under SB 1437 (amending Penal Code §§ 188, 189; adding § 1170.95) to vacate his murder and attempted murder convictions.
- The Santa Clara trial court denied the petition, ruling SB 1437 unconstitutional as an unlawful amendment of Propositions 7 and 115 and concluding SB 1437 did not apply to attempted murder.
- On appeal the Attorney General defended SB 1437’s constitutionality but argued it does not apply to attempted murder; the County DA argued SB 1437 was unconstitutional.
- The Sixth District held SB 1437 is constitutional and does not violate separation of powers, but it does not apply to attempted murder; the trial court’s order was reversed and remanded for consideration of Alaybue’s § 1170.95 petition as to his murder convictions only.
Issues
| Issue | People/DA's Argument | Alaybue's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 7 | SB 1437 redefined murder elements, undermining Prop 7’s increase of punishments | SB 1437 changed elements, not penalties, so it did not amend Prop 7 | SB 1437 did not amend Prop 7; it altered elements of liability, not the punishment scheme |
| Whether SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 115 | SB 1437 added mens rea/actus‑reus requirements that conflict with Prop 115’s expansion of predicate felonies | SB 1437 addressed accomplice liability, a distinct topic the Legislature could amend | SB 1437 did not amend Prop 115; it limited accomplice liability without changing predicate‑felony list |
| Whether SB 1437 violates separation of powers or executive charging discretion | Section 1170.95’s redesignation/resentencing interferes with prosecutorial charging and finality of judgments | SB 1437 is remedial lenity; resentencing procedures respect prosecutorial choices and judicial fact‑finding | No separation‑of‑powers violation; § 1170.95 is a permissible legislative exercise allowing judicial reconsideration of sentences |
| Whether SB 1437 applies to attempted murder | SB 1437 (per some formulations) could apply to attempts under natural and probable consequences theory | SB 1437 applies to murder only; it does not mention attempts and § 1170.95 refers only to murder convictions | SB 1437 does not apply to attempted murder; its language and legislative history limit its relief to completed murder convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (initiative amendment test)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (purpose of constitutional initiative limitation)
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc., 32 Cal.2d 53 (incorporation‑by‑reference principles)
- People v. Hernandez, 30 Cal.4th 835 (application of Palermo rule)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (context re Prop 115 and major‑participant test)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (prosecutorial charging discretion)
- People v. Bunn, 27 Cal.4th 1 (limits on retroactive revival of dismissed prosecutions)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (federal separation‑of‑powers and finality principles)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (remedial legislation and reopening sentences)
- In re Chavez, 114 Cal.App.4th 989 (legislative adjustments to final judgments/sentences)