Opinion
G057882
04-21-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENE RAMON CASTRO, Defendant and Appellant.
Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, Tamar Pachter and Nelson R. Richards, Deputy Attorneys General, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Seton B. Hunt, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 94NF0824) OPINION Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Fred W. Slaughter, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, Tamar Pachter and Nelson R. Richards, Deputy Attorneys General, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Seton B. Hunt, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Defendant Rene Ramon Castro was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of attempted deliberate, premeditated murder in 1995. In 2019, he filed a petition in the superior court for vacation of his murder conviction and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, which was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4) (Senate Bill 1437). The court denied defendant's petition on the ground that Senate Bill 1437 amends Propositions 7 and 115, two voter initiatives, and therefore violates article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
Since the trial court's ruling, Senate Bill 1437 has been upheld as constitutional by a panel of this court (People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740 (Cruz); People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762 (Solis)) and in Division One of this district (People v. Superior Court (Gooden) 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (Gooden); People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Lamoureux)). These cases have concluded Senate Bill 1437 does not unconstitutionally amend either Proposition 7 or Proposition 115. Reaching the same conclusion here, we reverse the court's order denying defendant's petition and remand the matter for a hearing on the petition's merits.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1995, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and two counts of attempted deliberate, premeditated murder based on his participation in a gang fight in which members of a rival gang were killed or injured. Defendant did not personally commit the murder or attempted murders but was prosecuted on vicarious liability theories. At trial, the prosecution argued defendant was guilty of the charged offenses as an aider and abettor or coconspirator to the target offenses of assault, battery, or fighting in public and that the murder and attempted murders were the natural and probable consequences of the target offenses. A panel of this court affirmed his convictions in an unpublished decision in 1997, but remanded the matter for resentencing. (People v. Castro (June 3, 1997, G018694).) At the resentencing hearing, the court imposed concurrent life terms on defendant's attempted murder convictions and stayed the life sentence on his murder conviction.
In January 2019, defendant filed a petition under section 1170.95, seeking vacation of his murder conviction and resentencing. The People opposed defendant's petition on two grounds: (1) Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional because it amends Propositions 7 and 115; and (2) even if it is constitutional, defendant is ineligible for relief because he "aided and abetted the murder and acted with implied malice." Counsel for defendant filed a reply.
Following a hearing on the constitutionality of the legislation, the court denied the petition in a detailed ruling, finding Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutional. The court concluded Senate Bill 1437 violates the state constitution because the legislation "materially amends" initiative statutes enacted by the electorate through Propositions 7 and 115 "in a manner inconsistent with the electorate's intent and without the electorate's approval." The court did not address whether defendant was entitled to relief under section 1170.95 if the legislation was constitutional.
The record reflects the court held hearings on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 in this case and People v. Hong (Super. Ct. Orange County, No. 00NF2372) on the same day. Because the same issues and written arguments were before the court in both cases and presented by the same attorneys, the parties stipulated the reporter's transcript of the hearing in People v. Hong would be considered by the trial court in making its decision in defendant's case. We have reviewed the transcript, which is part of defendant's appellate record.
Defendant appealed from the order denying his petition. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) On appeal, he argues Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional, and he urges us to reverse the court's order and remand the matter for a hearing on the merits of his petition. The Orange County District Attorney (hereinafter District Attorney), representing the People in this appeal, maintains Senate Bill 1437 amends both Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 and is therefore unconstitutional. After defendant filed his reply brief, the California Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief on his behalf, defending the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 by arguing it amends neither initiative.
Before the Attorney General filed his amicus curiae brief, defendant filed a request for judicial notice of the briefs filed in Solis, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th 762 and People v. Smith, case No. G057702, wherein the Attorney General argued Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional. As the Attorney General subsequently filed an amicus brief taking the same position in defendant's case, we deny defendant's request for judicial notice as unnecessary.
DISCUSSION
Senate Bill 1437 limited accomplice liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and the felony murder rule by amending sections 188 and 189 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 1, subd. (f), 2, 3) "to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." (Id., § 1, subd. (f).) It also added section 1170.95, which provides a process for defendants previously convicted of murder under these vicarious liability theories to petition the superior court for vacation of their murder convictions and for resentencing, if they could not be convicted of murder now under the amended statutes. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) We recently concluded Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional, rejecting the District Attorney's arguments that it amends either Proposition 7 or 115. (Cruz, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 747; Solis, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 769.) We adhere to our decisions in Cruz and Solis and need not repeat their reasoning at length here.
Article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending a statute enacted through a voter initiative without "approval of the electorate unless the initiative measure itself permits amendment or repeal without voter approval." (People v. Cooper (2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 44.) The purpose of this "'constitutional limitation on the Legislature's power to amend initiative statutes is to "protect the people's initiative powers by precluding the Legislature from undoing what the people have done, without the electorate's consent."'" (People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1025.) Our Supreme Court has "described an amendment as 'a legislative act designed to change an existing initiative statute by adding or taking from it some particular provision.'" (People v. Superior Court (Pearson) (2010) 48 Cal.4th 564, 571.) But "any legislation that concerns the same subject matter as an initiative" is not necessarily an amendment. (Ibid.) "[T]he Legislature remains free to enact laws addressing the general subject matter of an initiative, or a 'related but distinct area' of law that an initiative measure 'does not specifically authorize or prohibit.'" (Kelly, at p. 1026, fn. 19; accord, Pearson, at p. 571.)
In Cruz, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th 740, we analyzed Senate Bill 1437 and the initiative statutes for Propositions 7 and 115, as well as their ballot materials. (Cruz, at pp. 752-761.) We concluded: "the Legislature's enactment of Senate Bill 1437 has not undone what the voters accomplished with Proposition 7 or Proposition 115 and therefore the legislation does not violate the constitution. Senate Bill 1437 addresses the elements of murder, an area related to but distinct from the penalty for murder set by voters in Proposition 7. Nothing in the language of Proposition 7 nor its ballot materials evidences an intent by the voters to prohibit the Legislature from refining the elements of murder, namely limiting accomplice liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or felony-murder rule. Nor did the voters so limit the Legislature with the passage of Proposition 115." (Id. at p. 747.) We rejected the District Attorney's assertion that Senate Bill 1437 alters the punishment for murder set by Proposition 7 by amending the definition of malice in section 188 and by limiting who can be prosecuted for felony murder in section 189. (Cruz, at p. 754.) We likewise concluded Senate Bill 1437 did not amend Proposition 115, rejecting the District Attorney's contention that the Legislature was prohibited from addressing accomplice liability for felony murder in Senate Bill 1437 because accomplice liability in death penalty cases was addressed in Proposition 115. (Cruz, at pp. 759-760.) We explained Senate Bill 1437's limitations on accomplice liability "in section 189 is an area of law related to but distinct from accomplice liability in special circumstance murder in section 190.2" and "Senate Bill 1437 did not improperly amend Proposition 115 by adding such restrictions to felony murder in section 189." (Cruz, at p. 760.)
Similarly in Solis, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th 762, we determined Senate Bill 1437 does not authorize anything prohibited by Propositions 7 or 115 nor prohibit anything authorized by the voters in these initiatives. (Solis, at p. 769.) After reviewing the ballot materials for Proposition 7 (Solis, at pp. 776-777), we concluded "Senate Bill No. 1437 is neither inconsistent with Proposition 7, nor does it circumvent the electorate's intent." (Id. at p. 779.) We reached the same conclusion as to Proposition 115, after considering its text and ballot materials. (Solis, at pp. 780-783.)
As the arguments advanced by the District Attorney in this case are identical to those already rejected in Cruz and Solis, we see no reason to depart from our analyses and conclusions holding Senate Bill 1437 constitutional.
In upholding Senate Bill 1437 as constitutional in Cruz and Solis, we reached the same conclusions as our Division One colleagues in Gooden, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th 270 and Lamoureux, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th 241. In Gooden, the majority concluded Senate Bill 1437 was constitutional, explaining it did not amend either "Proposition 7 or Proposition 115 because it neither added to, nor took away from, the initiatives." (Gooden, at p. 275; accord, Lamoureux, supra, at p. 251.)
For the reasons we articulated in Cruz and Solis, we conclude the trial court erred by denying defendant's petition.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order denying defendant's petition for resentencing is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings on the merits of defendant's petition under section 1170.95.
IKOLA, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. FYBEL, J.