50 Cal.App.5th 46
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 2018 the Legislature enacted S.B. 1437, narrowing murder liability by amending Penal Code §§ 188 and 189 (limiting felony-murder and eliminating murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine) and adding Penal Code § 1170.95 to permit resentencing petitions for people previously convicted under those theories.
- Gerry Johns was convicted (1981) of robbery and second‑degree murder after a codefendant shot a robbery victim; he later filed a § 1170.95 petition to vacate his murder conviction.
- The San Bernardino DA moved to strike Johns’ petition, arguing S.B. 1437 unlawfully amended two voter initiatives—Proposition 7 (1978) and Proposition 115 (1990)—and thus was invalid; the trial court granted the motion and struck the petition.
- On appeal the court reviewed whether S.B. 1437 amended the initiatives and whether § 1170.95 violates separation of powers or Marsy’s Law (victims’ rights).
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held S.B. 1437 did not amend Propositions 7 or 115, and that § 1170.95 does not violate separation of powers or Marsy’s Law; the case was remanded for proceedings under § 1170.95.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.B. 1437 impermissibly amended Prop. 7 (punishment for murder) | S.B. 1437 changes who can be convicted of murder, effectively reducing punishments the voters fixed in Prop. 7 | S.B. 1437 alters elements/mental state, not prescribed punishments; Prop. 7 addressed penalties, not elements | S.B. 1437 did not amend Prop. 7; Legislature may change related but distinct law (elements) without voter approval |
| Whether S.B. 1437 impermissibly amended Prop. 115 (predicate felonies and death‑eligibility) | S.B. 1437 altered murder liability generally, conflicting with Prop. 115’s amendments to §189 | S.B. 1437 left the list of predicate felonies intact and only changed required mental state | S.B. 1437 did not amend Prop. 115; it did not change predicate felonies and addressed a distinct topic (mens rea) |
| Whether § 1170.95 violates separation of powers or Marsy’s Law by reopening final convictions / undermining victims’ rights | § 1170.95 improperly reopens final judgments, usurps judicial/executive core functions, and violates victims’ rights to finality and safety | Legislature may enact ameliorative, retroactive reform and provide a petition process; resentencing preserves victim‑safety considerations | § 1170.95 does not violate separation of powers (it is not refiling legislation) and does not violate Marsy’s Law because resentencing allows safety and other factors to be considered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (statutory amendment vs. initiative analysis)
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (initiative amendment/interpretation principles)
- People v. Bunn, 27 Cal.4th 1 (separation of powers / statutes of limitations analysis)
- People v. King, 27 Cal.4th 29 (companion to Bunn on retroactivity and separation of powers)
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc., 32 Cal.2d 53 (when statutory references incorporate later amendments)
- County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates, 6 Cal.5th 196 (effect of constitutional reenactment of statutes)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (federal separation of powers precedent cited in Bunn/King)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (analysis rejecting separation of powers and Marsy’s Law challenges to §1170.95)
- People v. Gooden, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (analysis that S.B. 1437 did not amend Propositions 7 or 115)
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (natural and probable consequences doctrine)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (mens rea and scope of aider/abettor liability)
- People v. Johns, 145 Cal.App.3d 281 (original conviction and facts of the underlying offense)