California Court of Appeal Aug 28, 2020 No. E073709Unpublished
Filed 8/28/20 P. v. Burhop CA4/2 See dissenting opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E073709
v. (Super.Ct.No. FRE03818)
TRAVIS BURHOP, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed with directions.
Richard Power, 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, for the
Attorney General as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
1
Jason Anderson, District Attorney, and James R. Secord, Deputy District
Cal.App. Lexis 724, at pp. [64]-[69]] (conc. & dis. opn. of Poochigian, Acting P.J.).)
Here, it is unnecessary to further discuss the constitutional validity of Senate Bill
1437, given that its constitutional validity, and the dissenting views of its constitutional
invalidity, have been so thoroughly discussed in the extant case law. Instead, we follow
and adopt the reasoning of Lamoureux, Gooden, of this court’s decision in Johns, of the
majority opinion in Lippert, and of the other decisions upholding the constitutional
validity of Senate Bill 1437. For the reasons explained in these decisions, we conclude
that Senate Bill 1437 did not amend Propositions 7, 115, or 9; does not violate separation
of powers principles; and is, therefore, constitutionally valid.
7
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court for further
proceedings on defendant’s section 1170.95 petition.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J. I concur:
RAPHAEL J.
8
[The People v. Travis Burhop, E073079]
RAMIREZ, P.J.
I respectfully dissent. For the reasons that I stated in my dissent in People v.
Lippert (2020) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ [2020 Cal.App. LEXIS 754], I believe Senate Bill
No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1437) is unconstitutional because (1) it amends
Proposition 7, and (2) it violates the separation of powers. RAMIREZ P. J.
1
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that Senate Bill 1437 is constitutionally valid, as it does not impermissibly amend Propositions 7, 115, or 9, nor does it violate separation of powers principles.
Issues
Whether Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional for impermissibly amending Propositions 7, 115, or 9.
Whether Senate Bill 1437 violates separation of powers principles.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“we conclude that Senate Bill 1437 did not amend Propositions 7, 115, or 9; does not violate separation of powers principles; and is, therefore, constitutionally valid.”
“The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings on defendant’s section 1170.95 petition.”