Opinion
G057553
03-19-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES ANTHONY MURPHY, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Robertson, 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 for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 07NF2178) OPINION Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Thomas E. Robertson, 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 for Defendant and Appellant. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Seton B. Hunt, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Charles Anthony Murphy, Jr., appeals from the trial court's summary denial of his petition for resentencing (Petition) under Penal Code section 1170.95 (section 1170.95).
In 2012, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder with special circumstances, attempted premeditated murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
In 2019, defendant filed the Petition seeking resentencing on the murder convictions. The trial court denied the Petition on the grounds that Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, SB 1437), the legislation which added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code, is unconstitutional, because it amends Proposition 7 and Proposition 115. Defendant timely appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel initially filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court he found no arguable issues to assert on defendant's behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)
Counsel and this court notified defendant he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, we received no supplemental brief from him and the time for him to file one has passed.
We reviewed the record as required by Wende, and ordered the parties to brief whether the trial court erred by ruling SB 1437 unconstitutional. Defendant's supplemental briefs, and an amicus curiae brief filed by the Attorney General (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(c)(7)), all argue the trial court erred. The respondent's brief filed by the Orange County District Attorney (District Attorney) argues the contrary.
We conclude the trial court erred by ruling SB 1437 unconstitutional. Consequently, we reverse the order denying the Petition, and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to consider the Petition on the merits.
DISCUSSION
SB 1437 was enacted to "'amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder . . . .'" (People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723 (Martinez), quoting Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) SB 1437 added section 1170.95, which allows those "convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory . . . [to] file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner's murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts . . . ." (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).)
Here, the trial court did not determine whether defendant qualified for relief under section 1170.95, but instead denied the Petition solely on the ground that SB 1437 violated Article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution because: (1) it amends Proposition 7, which increased the penalty for first and second degree murder, and (2) it amends Proposition 115, which added to the list of crimes warranting a first-degree felony murder conviction.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by finding SB 1437 unconstitutional. He seeks reversal of the order denying the Petition and a remand for a hearing on its merits. The Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of defendant, defending the constitutionality of SB 1437 and arguing it amends neither Proposition 7 nor Proposition 115. The District Attorney, representing the People in this appeal, contends SB 1437 amends both propositions.
The issue of whether SB 1437 amends either proposition is a question of law we review de novo. (People v. Armogeda (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 428, 435.) We "'start[] with the presumption that the Legislature acted within its authority.'" (People v. DeLeon (2017) 3 Cal.5th 640, 651.) "'In considering the constitutionality of a legislative act we presume its validity, resolving all doubts in favor of the [a]ct. Unless conflict with a provision of the state or federal Constitution is clear and unquestionable, we must uphold the [a]ct.'" (Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243, 1252.)
The constitutionality of SB 1437 was recently upheld by a different panel of this Division Three in People v. Cruz (Mar. 18, 2020, G057564) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Cruz); (People v. Solis (Mar. 18, 2020, G057510) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (Solis), and by our colleagues in Division One of this court in People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270; People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241.
In all four of these cases, the appellate courts agreed with arguments which were substantially identical to those advanced by defendant and the Attorney General in this case, and rejected arguments comparable those advanced by the District Attorney here. We do the same, for the reasons articulated in Cruz and Solis which we agree with and adopt as our own. Therefore, we conclude the trial court erred by finding SB 1437 unconstitutional.
DISPOSITION
The order is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to consider the Petition on the merits under section 1170.95.
THOMPSON, J. WE CONCUR: ARONSON, ACTING P. J. IKOLA, J.