53 Cal.App.5th 304
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- SB 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed felony-murder and abolished the natural-and-probable-consequences theory for murder, amended Penal Code §§ 188, 189, and added a resentencing procedure (§ 1170.95).
- David Lippert, convicted of murder in 2003, filed a § 1170.95 petition; the parties stipulated he made a prima facie showing entitling him to pursue relief.
- The San Bernardino County District Attorney moved to strike the petition, arguing SB 1437 is unconstitutional because it: (1) impermissibly amended Propositions 7 and 115; (2) violates separation of powers; and (3) violates Marsy’s Law.
- The trial court struck Lippert’s petition on the ground SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended Propositions 7 and 115; it did not rule on the separation-of-powers or Marsy’s Law claims.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal (majority) reversed, holding SB 1437 constitutional, adopting the analyses in People v. Gooden and People v. Lamoureux, and remanded for a § 1170.95 hearing.
- A concurring/dissenting opinion (Ramirez, P.J.) argued SB 1437 (and § 1170.95) is unconstitutional insofar as it (1) effectively amends Proposition 7 by retroactively undoing sentences imposed under that initiative, and (2) violates separation-of-powers principles under Plaut and California decisions applying it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 1437 impermissibly amend Proposition 7? | SB 1437 effectively reduces sentences imposed under Prop 7 and thus takes away what voters required. | SB 1437 changes the mental-state elements of murder, not the penalty scheme set by Prop 7; it addresses a distinct subject. | Majority: SB 1437 does not amend Prop 7; it alters mental-state elements and § 1170.95 is permissible; trial court reversed. Dissent: SB 1437 retroactively removes penalties voters mandated and thus unlawfully amends Prop 7. |
| Does SB 1437 impermissibly amend Proposition 115? | SB 1437 restricts felony-murder liability for predicate felonies added by Prop 115. | SB 1437 does not change the list of predicate felonies; it changes who, given those felonies, can be convicted of murder. | Held: SB 1437 does not amend Prop 115; it modifies mental-state requirements only. |
| Does § 1170.95 violate separation of powers by reopening final convictions? | Retroactive vacatur/resentencing under § 1170.95 unlawfully readjudicates final judgments. | § 1170.95 provides ameliorative relief to defendants and does not unlawfully intrude on judicial finality; it fits within accepted legislative remedial measures. | Majority: No separation-of-powers violation; legislative relief permissible. Dissent: Plaut, Bunn, King require that final judgments not be readjudicated by statute; § 1170.95 violates separation of powers for final convictions. |
| Does § 1170.95 violate Marsy’s Law (victims’ rights)? | (People advanced) § 1170.95 undermines victims’ rights to prompt and final proceedings. | § 1170.95 does not eliminate victims’ rights and courts may consider victims’ safety and other Marsy interests at resentencing. | Held: § 1170.95 does not violate Marsy’s Law as interpreted in Lamoureux; victims’ rights are preserved in resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gooden, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (2019) (held SB 1437 does not amend Propositions 7 or 115 and adopted mental-state distinction)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (2019) (concluded § 1170.95 does not violate separation of powers or Marsy’s Law)
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) (federal prohibition on Congress retroactively reopening final judgments)
- People v. Bunn, 27 Cal.4th 1 (2002) (applied Plaut to California and limited refiling provisions when judgments were final)
- People v. King, 27 Cal.4th 29 (2002) (applied Plaut and Bunn to bar retroactive refiling when finality had attached)
- People v. Armogeda, 233 Cal.App.4th 428 (2015) (example where legislature’s enactment was treated as an amendment of an initiative by changing coverage via new statutory structure)
- People v. Jenkins, 10 Cal.4th 234 (1995) (discussed interaction of sentencing statutes and Proposition 7)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (described limits of natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine for first-degree murder)
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (2002) (explained Proposition 7’s purpose to increase punishments for murder)