42 Cal.App.5th 270
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2018 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019), which narrowed felony-murder liability (§ 189), limited imputed malice (§ 188), and created a postconviction relief procedure (§ 1170.95) allowing certain felony-murder/natural-and-probable-consequences murder convictions to be vacated and defendants resentenced.
- Real parties in interest Allen Gooden and Marty Dominguez—convicted of murder in the 1980s–1990s—filed § 1170.95 petitions seeking vacatur and resentencing.
- The People moved to dismiss, arguing SB 1437 impermissibly amended two voter initiatives: Proposition 7 (1978) (which increased murder penalties) and Proposition 115 (1990) (which added predicate felonies for first‑degree felony murder), in violation of Cal. Const. art. II, § 10(c).
- The trial court denied the People’s motions, holding SB 1437 did not amend either initiative; the People sought writ relief in the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal denied the petitions, concluding SB 1437 altered the elements/mens rea of murder (a matter distinct from the initiatives’ focus on punishments and predicate felonies) and therefore did not amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Real Parties/AG Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1437 amended Proposition 7 (Briggs Initiative) | SB 1437 changed the definition of murder and thus "took away" from Prop 7’s punishment scheme by narrowing who qualifies for the enhanced sentences | Prop 7 addressed punishment only; SB 1437 changed mens rea/elements (not authorized punishments) and so did not amend Prop 7 | SB 1437 did not amend Prop 7; legislation may change substantive elements/mens rea even if punishments remain intact |
| Whether SB 1437 amended Proposition 115 (predicate felonies for felony murder) | Because Prop 115 reenacted § 189 in full and restricted amendment, SB 1437’s changes to § 189 (mens rea) improperly amended Prop 115 | Prop 115 only substantively altered predicate-felony list; SB 1437 did not change that list and technical reenactment does not bar later legislative changes to other parts | SB 1437 did not amend Prop 115; reenactment for article IV § 9 compliance does not freeze unrelated provisions |
| Whether § 1170.95 resentencing violates Prop 7 by retroactively reducing historical murder sentences | Resentencing improperly allows a person lawfully convicted and sentenced under Prop 7 to obtain a lesser result, contravening the voters’ punishment choice | A successful § 1170.95 petition vacates the original murder judgment (as if never rendered); it does not amend Prop 7 or the punishments it preserves | § 1170.95 does not violate Prop 7; it effects vacatur and resentencing consistent with SB 1437’s substantive changes |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pearson, 48 Cal.4th 564 (legislative amendment test: does statute prohibit what initiative authorizes or authorize what it prohibits)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (purpose of article II § 10 is to protect initiative power from legislative undoing)
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (legislature free to address related but distinct areas without amending initiative)
- People v. Hernandez, 30 Cal.4th 835 (distinguishes general vs specific statutory references when fixing penalties)
- County of San Diego v. Commission on State Mandates, 6 Cal.5th 196 (requirement to reenact statutes for article IV § 9 does not necessarily bar later legislative amendments to technically restated provisions)
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc., 32 Cal.2d 53 (rule on incorporation by reference: effect of general vs specific references)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (distinction between elements of offense and sentencing factors)