People v. Carrasco CA4/3

Filed 8/25/20 P. v. Carrasco CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G057911

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09CF0090)

LETICIA CARRASCO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Janice R. Mazur, 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.

Leticia Carrasco appeals from a postjudgment order after the trial court 1 denied her petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the Legislature enacted in Senate Bill No. 1437 (S.B. 1437). Carrasco argues the trial court erred by concluding S.B. 1437 was unconstitutional because it impermissibly amended two voter initiatives. We agree and reverse the order. FACTS In 2013, a jury convicted Carrasco of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5). The trial court sentenced Carrasco to 25 years to life. We affirmed the judgment but modified it to stay the sentence for the robbery conviction pursuant to section 654. (People v. Carrasco (Sept. 30, 2014, G048592) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, Carrasco filed a section 1170.95 petition to vacate her murder conviction and be resentenced. The Orange County District Attorney filed an opposition and Carrasco filed a reply brief. The trial court denied the petition, concluding S.B. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-4), was unconstitutional because it impermissibly amended Propositions 7 and 115. DISCUSSION “Legislation unconstitutionally amends an initiative statute if it changes that statute ‘“‘by adding or taking from it some particular provision.’”’ [Citations.] Legislation may address the same subject matter as an initiative, and may even augment the provisions of an initiative, without amending it. The key to our analysis is determining ‘“whether [the legislation] prohibits what the initiative authorizes, or authorizes what the initiative prohibits.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Solis (2020)