Marsy's Law was intended "to strengthen and increase the number of crime victims’ rights." ( People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 47, 270 Cal.Rptr.3d 93.) Marsy's Law "find[s] and declare[s]" that the rights of victims of crimes and their families include "personally held and enforceable rights described in ... subdivision (b)" ( art. I, § 28, subd. (a)(3)), which in turn sets forth 17 specific rights to which a crime victim shall be entitled ( People v. Hannon (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 94, 100, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 408 ; art. I, § 28, subd. (b)).
The District Attorney further contends Senate Bill 1437 violates the separation of powers doctrine because it vacates final judgments, which is assertedly the province of the courts. However, in People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 49-51 (Marquez), the court held that Senate Bill 1437 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Other cases have reached the same conclusion since the District Attorney filed his brief. (See, e.g., People v. Lippert (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 304, 313; People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1073-1081; Bucio, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at pp. 313-314; Lamoureux, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at pp. 257-264.)
In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 9 (Marsy's Law), which amended the California Constitution and the Penal Code to “strengthen and increase the No. of crime victims' rights.” People v. Marquez, 56 Cal.App. 5th 40, 47 (2020). The plaintiffs' claim is based on the rights (1) “[t]o be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant” and (2) “[t]o reasonable notice of and to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding, the arrest of the defendant.”
"Marsy's Law, which was passed by the California electorate in 2008 as Proposition 9, amended the California Constitution and added provisions to the Penal Code in order to strengthen and increase the number of crime victims' rights." People v. Marquez, 56 Cal. App. 5th 40, 97-97 (2020) (citing People v. Johns, 50 Cal.App.5th 46, 68 (2020)). "Marsy's Law amended the California Constitution to grant crime victims the right '[t]o a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings' (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b)(9)), and '[t]o have the safety of the victim, the victim's family, and the general public considered before any parole or other post-judgment release decision is made' (id., subd. (b)(16))." Id.
However, we note that courts of appeal in California have consistently rejected constitutional challenges to Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437). (See People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 44, 46-51; People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553, 555; and People v. Superior Court (Dominguez) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 276, 289.)
. (See People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 44, 47-52 (Marquez II) [holding Senate Bill 1437 neither conflicts with Marsy's Law nor violates the separation of powers doctrine].) In facing at each stage of these proceedings early questions regarding implementation of Senate Bill 1437 and related legislation, neither the parties nor the trial court have had the benefit of subsequent clarifying caselaw-including the limitation on judicial factfinding at the prima facie stage. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Other courts of appeal have also consistently rejected arguments that were very similar to those presented to the trial court in this case, concluding that Senate Bill 1437 was unconstitutionally inconsistent with Propositions 7 and 115 and the People's arguments on appeal that Senate Bill 1437 violates the separation of powers doctrine and Proposition 9. (People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 44, 46-51 [Prop. 9, separation of powers]; People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553, 555, 559-565 [Props. 7, 9, 115]; People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896, 902 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Lopez (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589, 594 [same]; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 211 [Props. 7, 115; separation of powers]; People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46, 54-55 [Props. 7, 9, 115; separation of powers]; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480, 492 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 85, 91-92 [Prop. 7], review granted July 22, 2020, S262835; People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300, 306 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762, 784 [same]; People v. Cruz, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 747 [same]; People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 275, 289 [same]; Lamoureux, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 [Props. 7, 9, 115; separation of powers].) Next, the parties agree that defendant stated a prima facie cas
Other courts of appeal have also consistently rejected arguments that were very similar to the trial court's opinion concluding that Senate Bill 1437 was unconstitutionally inconsistent with Propositions 7 and 115 and the People's arguments on appeal that Senate Bill 1437 violates the separation of powers doctrine and Proposition 9. (People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 44, 46-51 [Prop. 9, separation of powers]; People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553, 555, 559-565 [Props. 7, 9, 115]; People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896, 902 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Lopez (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589, 594 [same]; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 211 [Props. 7, 115; separation of powers]; People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46, 54-55 [Props. 7, 9, 115; separation of powers]; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480, 492 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 85, 91-92 [Prop. 7], review granted July 22, 2020, S262835; People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300, 306 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762, 784 [same]; People v. Cruz, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 747 [same]; People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 275, 289 [same]; Lamoureux, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 246 [Props. 7, 9, 115; separation of powers].)
Courts of Appeal, including this one, have unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1437 against a variety of challenges. (People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1053; see People v. Wilkins (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 153, 157, 163-166; People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 44, 47-51; People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553, 555, 559-565; People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896, 902; People v. Lopez (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589, 594; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 211; People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46, 54-55; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480, 492; People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 85, 91-92, review granted July 22, 2020, S262835; People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300, 306; People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762, 784; People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740, 747; People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 275, 289; People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 246.)
In so doing, we joined our colleagues in other Courts of Appeal who have unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1437 and rejected some or all of the same claims. (See, e.g., People v. Wilkins (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 153, 157, 163-166 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Marquez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 40, 44, 47-51 [Prop. 9, separation of powers]; People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553, 555, 559-565 [Props. 7, 9, 115]; People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896, 902 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Lopez (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589, 594 [same]; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 211 [Props. 7, 115, separation of powers]; People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46, 54-55 [Props. 7, 9, 115, separation of powers]; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480, 492 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 85, 91-92 [Prop. 7], review granted July 22, 2020, S262835; People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300, 306 [Props. 7, 115]; People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762, 784 [same]; People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740, 747 [same]; People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 275, 289 [same]; People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 246 [