49 Cal.App.5th 480
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 1999 Manuel De Jesus Prado was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life without parole.
- In 2018 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019), which narrowed accomplice liability by amending Penal Code §§ 188 and 189 and added § 1170.95 creating a petition procedure for eligible defendants to seek vacatur/resentencing.
- Prado filed a § 1170.95 petition asserting he could not now be convicted of first or second degree murder under the amended statutes.
- The Orange County District Attorney responded that SB 1437 is unconstitutional because it impermissibly amended voter‑enacted initiative measures (Propositions 7 and 115) and alternatively argued Prado was statutorily ineligible.
- The trial court denied the petition, holding SB 1437 unconstitutional; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding §§ 188 and 189 are legislative statutes and § 1170.95 did not amend or repeal any initiative statute, and remanded for merits consideration.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 violated Art. II, § 10(c) by amending or repealing initiative statutes (so legislation is void) | SB 1437 unlawfully intrudes on voter initiative authority and effectively amended voter measures (Propositions 7 and 115) | §§ 188 and 189 were legislatively enacted (not initiative) and § 1170.95 is a new legislative statute that does not amend or repeal any initiative statute | Reversed trial court: §§ 188 and 189 are legislative statutes; § 1170.95 is a legislative enactment that neither amended nor repealed initiative statutes; remand for merits of § 1170.95 petition |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (discusses limitation on Legislature amending initiative statutes)
- County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates, 6 Cal.5th 196 (Cal. 2018) (explains effect of Gov. Code § 9605 when sections are amended)
- California Housing Finance Agency v. Elliott, 17 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1976) (presumption of validity for legislative acts)
- Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, 40 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 2007) (purpose of constitutional limitation protecting initiative power)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Cory, 80 Cal.App.3d 772 (Cal. 1978) (legislative act that amends initiative statute without voter approval is void)
- Huening v. Eu, 231 Cal.App.3d 766 (Cal. 1991) (invalidating legislative amendment to an initiative statute)
- People v. Cruz, 46 Cal.App.5th 740 (Cal. 2020) (held SB 1437 did not undo results of Propositions 7 or 115)
- People v. Solis, 46 Cal.App.5th 762 (Cal. 2020) (same)
- People v. Superior Court (Gooden), 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (Cal. 2019) (same)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Cal. 2019) (same)