46 Cal.App.5th 762
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1997 Rogelio Vasquez Solis was convicted of second‑degree murder under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine and sentenced to 15 years‑to‑life; conviction affirmed on appeal.
- In Dec. 2018 Solis petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code §1170.95 after enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which narrowed felony‑murder and aider/abettor liability and created a resentencing procedure.
- The Orange County DA opposed the petition, arguing SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended voter initiatives (Propositions 7 and 115) and therefore could not be applied without voter or supermajority legislative approval.
- The trial court agreed with the DA, denied Solis’s petition, and Solis appealed from that postjudgment order.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held SB 1437 is constitutional, does not amend Propositions 7 or 115, and remanded for the trial court to consider the merits of Solis’s §1170.95 petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 unconstitutionally amends Proposition 7 (death‑penalty enhancements) | SB 1437 redefines murder and limits who can be punished, thus altering Prop 7’s scheme and penalties | Prop 7 addressed punishment, not the elements of murder; Legislature may redefine criminal elements | SB 1437 does not unconstitutionally amend Prop 7 — it changes elements (mens rea) not the punishment scheme established by Prop 7 |
| Whether SB 1437 unconstitutionally amends Proposition 115 (felony‑murder scope) | SB 1437 effectively rewrites §189 and requires findings (intent or reckless indifference) that Prop 115 did not demand, so it amends Prop 115 | SB 1437 narrows liability for non‑killers but remains consistent with Prop 115’s goals; it changes elements, not the voter‑imposed list of predicate felonies | SB 1437 does not unconstitutionally amend Prop 115; it limits who may be convicted but does not conflict with Prop 115’s purposes |
| Remedy: Whether the trial court correctly denied the §1170.95 petition without reaching merits because SB 1437 is invalid | The DA said SB 1437 is invalid, so §1170.95 relief unavailable | Solis said SB 1437 is valid and he is entitled to have his petition considered on the merits | Trial court erred; SB 1437 is constitutional and the court must consider Solis’s §1170.95 petition on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.4th 564 (explains when later legislation amends an initiative)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (liberal construction to protect initiative power; amendment standard)
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (legislature may change subjects not specifically authorized/prohibited by initiative)
- In re Oluwa, 207 Cal.App.3d 439 (legislation that undercuts parole‑eligibility intent of Prop 7 found unconstitutional)
- Gooden v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (held SB 1437 did not amend Propositions 7 or 115)
- Lamoureux v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (same conclusion re: SB 1437; also rejected separation‑of‑powers and Marsy’s Law challenges)
- County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates, 6 Cal.5th 196 (discussion of reenactment and Legislature’s power to amend provisions)
- People v. Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (elements of implied malice and felony‑murder doctrine)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine explained)