People v. Cruz

• Decision Date: 18 March 2020
• Docket Number: G057564
• Citation: 260 Cal.Rptr.3d 166,46 Cal.App.5th 740
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alfredo CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant.

46 Cal.App.5th 740

260 Cal.Rptr.3d 166

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Alfredo CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant.

G057564

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.

Filed March 18, 2020

Allen G. Weinberg, Beverly Hills, 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.

OPINION

IKOLA, J.

Defendant Alfredo Cruz was convicted of second degree murder in 2010. In 2019, he filed a petition in the superior court for vacation of his murder conviction and resentencing under newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95.¹ Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4) (Senate Bill 1437), which took effect January 1, 2019. Senate Bill 1437 amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine for murder and the felony-murder rule "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." (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Senate Bill 1437 also provided for retroactive application of these amendments by creating a process in section 1170.95 through which qualifying defendants can have their murder convictions vacated and be resentenced. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.)

Here, the court did not determine whether defendant qualified for relief, but instead denied the petition on the ground that Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional. The court concluded Senate Bill 1437 violates article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution for two reasons: (1) it amends Proposition 7, which, when approved by voters in the 1978 general election, increased the penalty for first and second degree murder, and (2) it amends Proposition 115, which, when passed by voters in the 1990 primary election, added five serious felonies to the list of crimes warranting a first degree felony-murder conviction.

Appealing from the denial of his petition, defendant argues the court erred by finding Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutional. He seeks reversal of the court's order and a remand for a hearing on its merits. The California Attorney General, in his capacity as the " ‘chief law officer of the State,’ ( Cal. Const., art. 5, § 13 )," filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of defendant, defending the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 by arguing it amends neither Proposition 7 nor Proposition 115. The Orange County District Attorney (hereinafter District Attorney), representing the People in this appeal, contends otherwise. The District Attorney maintains Senate Bill 1437 amends both propositions and is therefore an unconstitutional "intrusion into the voters" initiative powers.

The voters' initiative powers that the District Attorney is concerned about are provided for in our state constitution. It protects the will of the electorate by prohibiting the Legislature from undoing what the voters have done through the initiative process. The Legislature remains free to pass laws concerning areas related to but distinct from those covered in an initiative statute but the legislation may not take away from an initiative's provisions without the voters' consent. ( People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1025, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 222 P.3d 186 ( Kelly ).) We conclude 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.

In this opinion and in the concurrently published opinion filed in People v. Solis (Mar. 18, 2020, G057510) 46 Cal.App.5th 762, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 854, ––– P.3d ––––, 2020 WL 1283489, we conclude Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional. Reaching this conclusion, we find ourselves in agreement with the majorities in People v. Superior Court (Gooden ) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 239 ( Gooden ) and People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 253 ( Lamoureux ), which also concluded Senate Bill 1437 did not amend either "Proposition 7 or Proposition 115 because it neither added to, nor took away from, the initiatives." ( Gooden , at p. 275, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 239 ; accord, Lamoureux, supra , at p. 251, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 253.)²

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 2010, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder based on his involvement in the death of Luis Rivera, which resulted after defendant took two of his friends with him to confront Rivera and Rivera's brothers about a dispute concerning a woman. What began as a yelling match, escalated into a fist fight, and ultimately resulted in one of defendant's companions shooting Rivera as defendant drove away. At trial, the prosecution pursued alternative theories of liability: (1) defendant aided and abetted the murder; (2) defendant aided and abetted the target offense of assault with a firearm, the natural and probable consequence of which was murder; and (3) defendant conspired to commit an assault with a firearm, the natural and probable consequence of which was murder. Defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. We affirmed the judgment in an unpublished decision in 2012. ( People v. Cruz (Feb. 6, 2012, G045010, 2012 WL 363920).)

In January 2019, defendant filed a petition under section 1170.95, asserting he was entitled to vacation of his murder conviction and resentencing. The District Attorney opposed defendant's petition, arguing Senate Bill 1437 amends Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 and is therefore unconstitutional. Defendant, represented by counsel, filed a reply. The court denied the petition in a written ruling, concluding Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional. The court did not address whether defendant was entitled to relief under section 1170.95 if the legislation is constitutional.

DISCUSSION

The issue we must decide is whether Senate Bill 1437 is an unconstitutional amendment of either Proposition 7 or Proposition 115.

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING AMENDMENT OF VOTER INITIATIVES

Under the California Constitution, a statute enacted through a voter initiative is afforded special protection that limits the Legislature's ability to modify it. Such a statute "may be changed only with the 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, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 37 P.3d 403 ; Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1483-1484, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 ( Quackenbush ) [the Legislature may amend a statute enacted by the initiative process "only if the voters specifically gave the Legislature that power, and then only upon whatever conditions the voters attached to the Legislature's amendatory powers"].) Article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution states: "The Legislature may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without the electors' approval." 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." ’ " ( Kelly, supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 1025, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 222 P.3d 186.)

What constitutes an amendment in this context has been addressed by our Supreme Court. Noting "some decisions contain broad definitions" of an amendment ( Kelly, supra , 47 Cal.4th at p. 1026, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 222 P.3d 186 ), the high court, seemingly seeking to narrow the definition, indicated "[i]t is sufficient to observe that ... an amendment includes a legislative act that changes an existing initiative statute by taking away from it." ( Id. at pp. 1026-1027, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 222 P.3d 186.)³ Less than a year later, the Supreme Court "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, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 227 P.3d 858 ( Pearson ).) In Pearson , the Supreme Court explained that "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, 103 Cal.Rptr.3d 733, 222 P.3d 186 ; accord, Pearson , at p. 571, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 227 P.3d 858.) In deciding whether legislation amends an initiative statute, a reviewing court determines whether the legislation "prohibits what the initiative authorizes, or authorizes what the initiative prohibits." ( Pearson , at p. 571, 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 227 P.3d 858.) This...