People v. Jackson CA2/6

Filed 8/19/20 P. v. Jackson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B301919 (Super. Ct. No. CR34092) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

FREDERICK LEE JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Frederick Lee Jackson appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate his first degree murder conviction and obtain resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (S.B. 1437), which went into effect on January 1, 2019. (See Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) S.B. 1437 amended the felony-murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine insofar as it applies to murder. It also added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code.1 If a defendant has previously been convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine and

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

qualifies for relief under section 1170.95, the statute permits the defendant to petition to vacate the conviction and obtain resentencing on any remaining counts. Section 1170.95, subdivision (c) provides, “If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” The trial court issued an order to show cause and conducted a hearing on the petition. The court ruled that, insofar as S.B. 1437 modified the felony-murder rule (§ 189), it unconstitutionally amended Proposition 115 because the Assembly had not passed it by a two- thirds margin. Therefore, without deciding whether appellant is entitled to relief under section 1170.95, the trial court denied his petition. We conclude that S.B. 1437 passes constitutional muster. We reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings in accordance with section 1170.95. Facts Since the trial court’s ruling and the arguments in the briefs are limited to the constitutionality of S.B. 1437, we omit a statement of facts underlying the murder conviction. A brief recitation of the facts appears at pages 2-4 of our nonpublished opinion affirming the 2005 judgment of conviction. (People v. Jackson (Mar. 18, 2008, B186302).) Procedural History In 2005 appellant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder after a retrial on that charge. In the original trial in 1995, he had been convicted of first degree murder and rape. In 2004 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the murder conviction. At the retrial of the murder charge, the jury found true an allegation that a principal in the commission of the