California Cases April 24, 2020: People v. Esteves

Case Description

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FWV038646)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Arthur A. Harrison, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Rebecca P. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Jason Anderson, District Attorney and James R. Secord, Deputy District Attorney, for the Plaintiff and Respondent.

Page 2

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.

Ingrid Esteves appeals from an order striking the petition for resentencing that she filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. We conclude that the trial court erred in striking the petition for resentencing. We therefore reverse the order and remand for the trial court to consider the merits of the petition.

In 2009, Esteves was convicted of murder and sentenced to prison for a term of 25 years to life.

"In 2018, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437), legislation that prospectively amended the mens rea requirements for the offense of murder and restricted the circumstances under which a person can be liable for murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.) Senate Bill 1437 also established a procedure permitting certain qualifying persons who were previously convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the courts that sentenced them to vacate their murder convictions and obtain resentencing on any remaining counts. ( Id ., § 3.)" ( People v . Superior Court ( Gooden ) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 274.) Specifically, newly-enacted Penal Code section 1170.95 sets

Page 3

forth a procedure by which an eligible person may file a petition to have his or her sentence vacated and obtain resentencing.

On January 22, 2019, Esteves filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. On March 18, 2019, the People filed a motion to strike the petition. The motion to strike argued that Senate Bill 1437 was unconstitutional because (1) it amended statutes passed as voter initiatives, but it was not approved by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, or was not approved by the electorate; (2) it violated the separation of powers of doctrine by allowing the Legislature to vacate final judgments; and (3) it conflicted with the Victims Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (Marsy's Law). On April 9, 2019, the trial court granted the motion to strike the petition. The trial court ruled that Senate Bill 1437 was unconstitutional because it was not passed with a two-thirds majority of both houses of the Legislature.

Esteves appeals from the order striking her petition. The San Bernardino County District Attorney (the District Attorney) has filed a respondent's brief opposing Esteves's appeal. The Attorney General has filed an amicus brief in support of Esteves's appeal.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional for any of the reasons identified by the District Attorney. In his appellate brief, the

Page 4

District Attorney sets forth the following grounds for the contention that Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional: (1) Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 7 (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978)) without voter approval; (2) Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 115 (Prop. 115, as approved by voters, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990)) without a vote in favor by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature or voter approval; (3) the application of Penal Code section 1170.95 to final judgments violates the separation of powers doctrine; and (4) Penal Code section 1170.95 directly conflicts with the constitutional rights of victims under the Victims Bill of Rights enacted by Proposition 9 (Marsy's Law).

In People v . Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, we extensively considered and rejected each of the arguments with respect to the unconstitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 and Penal Code section 1170.95 that the District Attorney presents here. Specifically, we held that Senate Bill 1437 did not unconstitutionally amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115, and that Penal Code section 1170.95 did not violate the separation of powers doctrine or the right of victims under Marsy's Law. ( Lamoureux , at p. 246.)

Relying on our analysis in Lamoureux , which we incorporate here, we conclude that the District Attorney has not identified any constitutional infirmity with Senate Bill 1437. The trial court accordingly erred in granting the People's motion to strike Esteves's petition for resentencing based on its ruling that Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional.

Page 5

The order striking Esteves's petition for resentencing is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits of the petition.

IRION, J.

I CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

Page 6

O'ROURKE, J., Dissenting.

I respectfully dissent on the grounds previously expressed in Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 and People v . Superior Court ( Gooden ) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270. For the reasons stated, I would affirm the trial court's order striking appellant's petition for resentencing brought under Penal Code section 1170.95.

O'ROURKE, J.