51 Cal.App.5th 896
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1990 Donald R. Ferraro and Roger Hunter pled guilty to second-degree murder for the same incident. In 2019 each filed a section 1170.95 petition seeking resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437).
- SB 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) narrowed felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability by changing elements in sections 188 and 189 and added a remedy procedure (§ 1170.95) for qualifying convictions.
- The Butte County District Attorney moved to strike the petitions, arguing SB 1437 unconstitutionally amended voter initiatives Proposition 7 (1978) and Proposition 115 (1990), which would require voter approval or a two‑thirds legislative vote to amend.
- The superior court denied the DA’s motions; the People sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal challenging that denial.
- The Court of Appeal denied the writs, joining several other appellate decisions, holding SB 1437 did not amend Prop. 7 or Prop. 115 because it changed the elements of the offense (not the punishment) and addressed a related but distinct subject.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Real Parties’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amends Proposition 7 (1978) by altering murder liability and thus reducing the scope of convictions that trigger Prop. 7 punishments | Prop. 7’s references to "first‑degree" and "second‑degree" murder froze definitions of murder (sections 187–189) as of 1978; SB 1437 narrows who can be convicted and thus improperly reduces Prop. 7’s scope | Prop. 7 fixes punishment, not the frozen substantive elements of murder; SB 1437 changes offense elements (liability), not the punishments set by Prop. 7, and thus does not amend Prop. 7 | Held: SB 1437 is not an amendment of Prop. 7; it addresses a related but distinct matter (definition/elements), and does not alter punishments established by Prop. 7 |
| Whether SB 1437 impermissibly amends Proposition 115 (1990) or its reenacted provisions without the required two‑thirds legislative vote or voter approval | Prop. 115 amended §189 and included language limiting legislative amendment; the voters intended to prevent legislative changes to murder liability without two‑thirds or voter approval, so SB 1437 is invalid | SB 1437 modifies the offense elements (related but distinct area) and does not alter the substantive parts of Prop. 115; technical reenactments copied from prior law are treated as preexisting law and do not bar ordinary legislative change absent clear voter intent | Held: SB 1437 does not impermissibly amend Prop. 115; voters did not reasonably intend to freeze §189’s substantive law against subsequent legislative change, so article II, §10(c) is not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bucio, 48 Cal.App.5th 300 (2020) (upholding SB 1437 against initiative‑amendment challenge)
- People v. Cruz, 46 Cal.App.5th 740 (2020) (SB 1437 addresses offense elements and does not amend Prop. 7)
- People v. Solis, 46 Cal.App.5th 762 (2020) (similar holding rejecting initiative amendment claim)
- People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (2019) (rejecting claim that SB 1437 unlawfully amends initiatives)
- People v. Gooden, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (2019) (SB 1437 is related but distinct from Prop. 7/115 provisions)
- Pearson (People v. Superior Court (Pearson)), 48 Cal.4th 564 (2010) (framework: legislation amends an initiative only if it authorizes what initiative prohibits or vice versa)
- Commission on State Mandates v. State, 6 Cal.5th 196 (2018) (technical reenactments do not necessarily insulate provisions from later legislative amendment)
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, 32 Cal.2d 53 (1948) (distinguishes specific versus general statutory incorporation)
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (limits on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences liability)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (2015) (discusses death‑penalty eligibility for non‑killers and mens rea issues)