People v. Lopez

Filed 10/25/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B256146 (Super. Ct. No. F209990001) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County) v. RAUL ALBERTO LOPEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

THE PEOPLE 2d Crim. No. B263639 (Super. Ct. No. F000210166) Plaintiff and Appellant, San Luis Obispo County v. FREDDIE CHACON, Defendant and Respondent.

A criminal defendant should not be punished for exercising a constitutional right as declared by the United States Supreme Court. Here, the defendants exercised their declared rights by obtaining habeas corpus relief. They should not be precluded from obtaining further relief pursuant to a subsequently enacted remedial statute which addresses vindication of the same constitutional right. Were we to do so, we would elevate form over substance. (Civil Code § 3528.) The People appeal from postjudgment orders granting probation to respondents Raul Alberto Lopez and Freddie Chacon after

the trial court recalled their sentences pursuant to newly amended 1 Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). In 1994, respondents were sentenced to life without possibility of parole (LWOP) plus nine years state prison for crimes they committed as juveniles. They served almost a quarter of a century in prison. The People contend that the trial court was without jurisdiction to recall the sentences after the LWOP sentences were modified to simple life sentences in 2012 pursuant to Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 82. The People seek refuge under the plain meaning rule. We understand the People’s point but we cannot, in good conscience, subscribe to the “‘dictionary school of jurisprudence.’” (See, e.g., People v. Clayburg (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 86, 91.) Application of the plain meaning rule would be unfair and penalize respondents because they exercised their constitutional rights as declared by the United States Supreme Court. We affirm. Procedural History In 1993, respondents, who were 16 years old, were confined in a California Youth Authority facility (CYA). They kidnapped a CYA librarian, Ava Goldman, in an attempt to escape from the facility in Paso Robles. Respondents took Goldman hostage and assaulted her. Roy Victorino, a CYA instructor, tried to rescue Goldman and was stabbed in the stomach and wrist with a shank. Respondents were apprehended before leaving the facility. Respondents were charged with aggravated kidnapping and related offenses. After waiver of jury, the trial court found them guilty of inter alia, kidnapping for ransom with special findings that they inflicted bodily harm, exposed the victim to a substantial likelihood of death, and personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon. (§§ 209, subd. (a); 12022.7; 12022, subd. (b).) It sentenced respondents to LWOP