54 Cal.App.5th 553
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Vincent Lombardo was convicted of second-degree murder in 1996 and in March 2019 filed a resentencing petition under Penal Code §1170.95 (enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437).
- Senate Bill 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended Penal Code §§188 and 189 to narrow felony‑murder and abolished murder liability under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine; it also added §1170.95 permitting vacatur/resentencing where the petitioner could not be convicted under the new law.
- The Tehama County Superior Court denied Lombardo’s §1170.95 petition, finding SB 1437 impermissibly amended voter initiatives Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 (and suggesting a possible Marsy’s Law/Prop 9 conflict).
- The People defended the denial by arguing SB 1437 unlawfully altered penalties and victim rights established by those propositions; Lombardo argued SB 1437 addressed related but distinct matters and did not amend the initiatives.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, joining other appellate decisions holding SB 1437 does not amend Propositions 7 or 115 and does not violate Marsy’s Law; the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amended Proposition 7 | SB 1437 redefined murder and thus undermines Prop 7’s punitive mandates and penalties | SB 1437 did not amend Prop 7; it addresses a related but distinct area (elements/mental state), not penalties | SB 1437 does not amend Prop 7; penalties remain intact and Legislature may change elements in related but distinct areas (reversed) |
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amended Proposition 115 | SB 1437 reduces who may be convicted of first‑degree felony murder, contradicting Prop 115’s expansion of predicate felonies and aiding‑and‑abetting liability | SB 1437 did not alter Prop 115’s list of predicate felonies; it changed mental‑state requirements for accomplices | SB 1437 does not amend Prop 115; it does not modify the predicate‑felony list and addresses a distinct topic (reversed) |
| Whether SB 1437 violates Marsy’s Law (Prop 9) | §1170.95 resentencing/ vacatur procedures impinge victims’ rights to prompt finality, consideration of public safety, and truth in sentencing | SB 1437 is consistent with Marsy’s Law because courts consider public safety at resentencing and the measure aims to align culpability and punishment | SB 1437 does not violate Marsy’s Law: (1) Marsy’s declaratory provisions aren’t self‑executing as argued; (2) courts may consider public safety at resentencing; uncodified legislative findings about overcrowding do not convert SB 1437 into an unlawful early‑release policy (reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (Legislature may address a related but distinct area without amending an initiative statute)
- People v. Gooden, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (SB 1437 does not amend voter initiatives; supports §1170.95 validity)
- People v. Cruz, 46 Cal.App.5th 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (rejects challenge that SB 1437 impermissibly amends Propositions 7/115)
- People v. Johns, 50 Cal.App.5th 46 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (concludes SB 1437 does not violate Marsy’s Law or amend initiatives)
- People v. Bucio, 48 Cal.App.5th 300 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (holds SB 1437 altered mental‑state requirements, not predicate felonies or penalties)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (Marsy’s Law does not categorically bar creation of new post‑judgment proceedings)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (distinguishes elements of crimes from sentencing considerations)