51 Cal.App.5th 589
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1996 Lopez pleaded no contest to second-degree murder as an aider/abettor; he admitted gang membership but was not the shooter. The court originally suspended sentence and placed him on probation, later revoking probation and imposing 15 years to life.
- In 2018 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437, which narrowed felony-murder and eliminated imputed malice/natural-and-probable-consequences liability, and added Penal Code § 1170.95 allowing eligible persons to petition for resentencing.
- Lopez filed a § 1170.95 petition in January 2019 seeking resentencing under SB 1437’s changes.
- The superior court summarily denied the petition solely on the ground SB 1437 was unconstitutional because it impermissibly amended voter initiatives Proposition 7 (1978) and Proposition 115 (1990).
- On appeal the Attorney General agreed SB 1437 is constitutional; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding SB 1437 and § 1170.95 did not impermissibly amend Propositions 7 or 115 and remanded for merits proceedings under § 1170.95.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amended Proposition 7 (penalty initiative) | SB 1437 changes murder law in a way that conflicts with Prop 7 and thus amends the initiative | SB 1437 changes elements/mental state, not punishments set by Prop 7, so it does not amend Prop 7 | Court: SB 1437 did not amend Prop 7; it addressed elements/mental state, not penalties, so Legislature acted within power |
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amended Proposition 115 (reenacted §189/predicate felonies) | SB 1437 conflicts with the reenacted §189 or the voters’ intent in Prop 115 | SB 1437 altered mental-state requirements, not the predicate-felonies list; Prop 115’s inclusion of full §189 text was technical reenactment and does not bar amendment | Court: SB 1437 did not amend Prop 115; changes concern distinct subject (mental state) and do not alter predicate felonies |
| Whether the superior court properly denied Lopez’s §1170.95 petition on constitutional grounds | Superior court: SB 1437 is unconstitutional, so petition denial was lawful | Lopez/AG: SB 1437 is constitutional and petition must be considered on the merits | Court: Superior court erred; reverse and remand for consideration under §1170.95 |
| Validity of §1170.95 and related constitutional objections (separation of powers, victims’ rights) | Amicus argued §1170.95 violates separation of powers and victims’ rights | Lopez/AG: statute valid; presumption of constitutionality; other courts have rejected these challenges | Court: Did not rest decision on these issues but rejected the initiative-amendment argument and noted other appellate decisions have rejected the alternative constitutional challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (statutes presumed constitutional; courts should narrowly construe and avoid invalidation when possible)
- People v. Pearson, 48 Cal.4th 564 (distinguishing permissible related legislation from unconstitutional amendment of initiative)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (distinguishing elements of an offense from punishment)
- County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates, 6 Cal.5th 196 (technical reenactment under article IV, §9 does not necessarily freeze the restatated text against later amendment)
- Johnston v. Claremont, 49 Cal.2d 826 (Legislature may not amend initiative statutes absent voter approval)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (presumption of validity of legislative acts and rules on statutory construction)
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (rules for interpreting initiatives and ballot materials)
- People v. Prado, 49 Cal.App.5th 480 (sections 188 and 189 remain legislative statutes subject to amendment)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (upholding SB 1437 principles and §1170.95 application)
- People v. Gooden, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (reasoning that SB 1437 addresses a distinct subject from Propositions 7 and 115)