People v. Shires CA3
C089979
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2021Background
- In 2011 Dylan Shires pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for a home robbery in which a homeowner died; judgment became final in 2012.
- In 2019 Shires filed a resentencing petition under newly enacted Penal Code § 1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437), which narrowed felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences liability and created a postconviction resentencing procedure.
- The district attorney opposed the petition, arguing SB 1437 (and § 1170.95) was unconstitutional as an improper amendment of voter initiatives (Propositions 7 and 115), violated separation of powers, and conflicted with Marsy’s Law.
- The trial court denied the petition, concluding SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 115 (and required a two-thirds legislative vote).
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding SB 1437 does not invalidly amend Propositions 7 or 115, does not violate separation of powers, and does not conflict with Marsy’s Law; the matter was remanded for further § 1170.95 proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amended Proposition 7 | SB 1437 effectively changed voter-set murder law and penalties in Prop 7 and thus required voter approval | SB 1437 changes the elements/mental state of murder, not the penalties set by Prop 7, so it is a permissible legislative change | Court: SB 1437 did not amend Prop 7; it changed elements (malice/felony-murder) not punishments, so no invalid amendment |
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amended Proposition 115 | SB 1437 undermines Prop 115’s treatment of accomplice/capital liability and thus improperly amends it | SB 1437 limits accomplice liability under §§ 188/189 but does not alter the list of predicate felonies in Prop 115; it addresses a related but distinct subject | Court: SB 1437 did not amend Prop 115; it limited culpability rules without removing predicate felonies, so constitutional |
| Whether § 1170.95 violates separation of powers by reopening final judgments | Allowing relief for final convictions intrudes on judiciary’s core functions and finality of judgments | Legislature may create postconviction procedures; reopening final judgments that ameliorate liberty interest is a permissible legislative function | Court: No separation-of-powers violation; § 1170.95 is a legitimate legislative exercise and mirrors prior relief statutes |
| Whether § 1170.95 conflicts with Marsy’s Law (victims’ rights) | The statute frustrates victims’ rights to finality and to have public/victim safety considered before postjudgment release | § 1170.95 permits resentencing on remaining counts and courts may consider safety and other sentencing factors, protecting victims’ interests | Court: No conflict with Marsy’s Law; postjudgment proceedings are not categorically foreclosed and courts can consider victim/public safety at resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Ferraro), 51 Cal.App.5th 896 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held SB 1437 did not amend Propositions 7 or 115; legislative changes addressed elements, not penalties)
- People v. Bucio, 48 Cal.App.5th 300 (Cal. Ct. App.) (rejected separation-of-powers and Marsy’s Law challenges to § 1170.95)
- People v. Cruz, 46 Cal.App.5th 740 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held Legislature may limit accomplice liability under felony-murder without violating Prop 115)
- People v. Solis, 46 Cal.App.5th 762 (Cal. Ct. App.) (concluded SB 1437 not an invalid amendment of voter initiatives)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Cal. Ct. App.) (addressed separation-of-powers and victims’ rights challenges to § 1170.95)
- People v. Gooden, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (Cal. Ct. App.) (analyzed relation between SB 1437 and voter initiatives; found no improper amendment)
- People v. Johns, 50 Cal.App.5th 46 (Cal. Ct. App.) (rejected Marsy’s Law and separation-of-powers objections to § 1170.95)
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 2002) (explains constitutional limits on legislative amendment of initiative statutes)
- People v. Bunn, 27 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2002) (discusses separation-of-powers baseline and core functions of branches)
- Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 33 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 2004) (states presumption of constitutionality for statutes)