63 Cal.App.5th 895
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Troy A. Steward was found not guilty by reason of insanity for battery on a correctional officer and committed to Atascadero State Hospital for 25 years to life under the Three Strikes scheme.
- After enactment of Assembly Bill No. 103, Steward petitioned (July 12, 2019) under Penal Code §§1170.126 and 1170.127 seeking reduction of his commitment term.
- The superior court ordered briefing on whether §1170.127 (AB 103) unconstitutionally amended Proposition 36; the district attorney’s office failed to file a timely brief and a late filing was rejected.
- The superior court held §1170.127 invalid as an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 36 because AB 103 passed with less than two-thirds legislative support.
- On appeal the People agreed with Steward that §1170.127 is valid; the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding AB 103 addresses NGI commitment terms (a related but distinct subject) and thus did not amend Proposition 36, and remanded for further proceedings on the petition’s merits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AB 103 (§1170.127) unconstitutionally amended Proposition 36 | People: AB 103 does not amend Prop 36 and is valid; request reversal | Steward: AB 103 is valid; superior court erred in finding it amended Prop 36 | Reversed: AB 103 did not amend Prop 36 because it addresses NGI commitments, a distinct subject; remand for merits |
| Whether the superior court erred in directing parties to brief the constitutionality of §1170.127 | People: did not contest procedure on appeal | Steward: court erred in ordering the issue be addressed | Court declined to decide procedural challenge because substantive error (holding AB 103 unconstitutional) was resolved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (Cal. 2010) (framework for when legislature may not amend an initiative)
- People v. Superior Court (Ferraro), 51 Cal.App.5th 896 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (legislation did not amend initiatives addressing different provisions)
- People v. Dobson, 245 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (Proposition 36 does not address NGI committees)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (Cal. 2010) (legislature may address related but distinct matters not covered by an initiative)
- People v. Superior Court (Gooden), 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (example of permissible legislation addressing related but distinct area)
- Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1983) (purpose of post-acquittal commitment is treatment and public safety)
- People v. Lara, 48 Cal.4th 216 (Cal. 2010) (an insanity acquittee is subject to civil commitment rather than criminal punishment)