46 Cal.App.5th 740
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2010 Alfredo Cruz was convicted of second-degree murder on theories including aiding-and-abetting and the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine; he received 15 years to life.
- Senate Bill 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences liability and created Penal Code § 1170.95 to permit eligible petitioners to seek vacation of murder convictions and resentencing.
- Cruz filed a § 1170.95 petition in 2019; the Orange County Superior Court denied it without reaching the petition’s merits, holding SB 1437 unconstitutional as an amendment to Propositions 7 and 115.
- The District Attorney argued SB 1437 impermissibly amended those voter initiatives; Cruz (and the Attorney General as amicus for Cruz) contended SB 1437 did not amend them because it changed elements of murder, not penalties or the specific initiative provisions.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held SB 1437 does not amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115 and remanded for a merits hearing on Cruz’s § 1170.95 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cruz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amends Proposition 7 | SB 1437 redefines murder elements, effectively reducing who is subject to Prop 7 penalties and thus takes away from that initiative. | SB 1437 alters elements of murder (accomplice liability), not the penalties set by Prop 7; it does not authorize what Prop 7 prohibits or vice versa. | SB 1437 does not amend Prop 7; it addresses elements (related but distinct) and leaves Prop 7 penalties intact. |
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amends Proposition 115 | SB 1437 limits accomplice liability for felony murder contrary to Prop 115’s revisions concerning felony-murder culpability. | Prop 115 added predicate felonies and addressed capital aiding-and-abetting separately; it did not freeze accomplice-liability rules for § 189, so the Legislature may limit accomplice liability there. | SB 1437 does not amend Prop 115; it limits accomplice liability in § 189 without removing the felonies Prop 115 added. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied Cruz’s § 1170.95 petition based solely on unconstitutionality of SB 1437 | Trial court: SB 1437 is unconstitutional, so petition must be denied. | Cruz: court should not dismiss on that ground because SB 1437 is constitutional; petition merits must be adjudicated. | Court of Appeal: trial court erred to deny on unconstitutionality; reverse and remand for merits under § 1170.95. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (explains limits on legislative amendment of initiative statutes and that an amendment includes taking away from an initiative)
- People v. Pearson, 48 Cal.4th 564 (Cal. 2010) (framework for deciding whether subsequent legislation "prohibits what the initiative authorizes, or authorizes what the initiative prohibits")
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 2002) (initiative statutes may be changed only as voters permit)
- People v. Powell, 5 Cal.5th 921 (Cal. 2018) (legislature has the power to define crimes and fix elements)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2015) (discusses Prop 115’s changes to felony-murder and capital aiding-and-abetting)
- In re Oluwa, 207 Cal.App.3d 439 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (distinguishes legislative changes that reduce initiative-mandated penalties from changes to collateral provisions)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2009) (describes malice, felony-murder doctrine)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (explains the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine)
- People v. Superior Court (Gooden), 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (concluded SB 1437 did not amend Propositions 7 or 115)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (same conclusion regarding SB 1437)