44 Cal.App.5th 985
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2013 Flores was charged with murder (during alleged robbery and kidnapping), alleged gang and firearm enhancements, and a prior prison term.
- She pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192(a)) and kidnapping (§ 207), admitted enhancements, and received a stipulated aggregate term of 24 years 8 months.
- Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed felony‑murder and natural & probable consequence liability and created a resentencing petition process under § 1170.95 for qualifying persons convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences theory.
- In 2019 Flores filed a § 1170.95 petition (checking a box saying she pleaded to avoid a murder conviction under those doctrines).
- The People opposed, arguing SB 1437 was unconstitutional and that Flores—convicted of voluntary manslaughter—was statutorily ineligible for § 1170.95 relief.
- The trial court denied the petition; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding § 1170.95 relief is limited to persons convicted of murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Flores) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1170.95 allows a person convicted of voluntary manslaughter to petition to vacate and be resentenced under SB 1437 | SB 1437 is constitutional; Flores is ineligible because she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, not murder | § 1170.95 should cover persons who pleaded to lesser included manslaughter when they accepted a plea to avoid murder liability under felony‑murder or natural & probable consequences doctrines; legislative intent references "homicides" and plea language implies inclusion; exclusion yields absurd results | § 1170.95’s plain text repeatedly and exclusively references murder; it does not apply to voluntary manslaughter. Flores is statutorily ineligible; trial court affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (interprets SB 1437’s accomplice liability changes as directed at murder and notes § 1170.95 speaks only to murder)
- People v. Larios, 42 Cal.App.5th 956 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (agrees § 1170.95 relief is limited to murder convictions despite broader reading of SB 1437’s accomplice liability provisions)
- People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (concludes SB 1437 and § 1170.95 plainly apply only to murder)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (rejects constitutional challenges to SB 1437)
- People v. Strickland, 11 Cal.3d 946 (Cal. 1974) (manslaughter is a separate offense and a lesser included offense of murder)
- People v. Rios, 23 Cal.4th 450 (Cal. 2000) (discusses that "homicide" can encompass murder and manslaughter)
- People v. Chadd, 28 Cal.3d 739 (Cal. 1981) (explains motives and reasons defendants plead guilty)
- People v. Cook, 60 Cal.4th 922 (Cal. 2015) (statutory interpretation principle: avoid literal readings that produce absurd results)