People v. Thompson CA4/3

Filed 9/1/20 P. v. Thompson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058156

v. (Super. Ct. No. C-33433)

MICHAEL LYNNE THOMPSON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Cathryn L. Rosciam, 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.

Defendant Michael Lynne Thompson appeals from the lower court’s denial of his petition for resentencing (Petition) under Penal Code section 1170.95 (section 1170.95). In 1975, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, one count of simple kidnapping, and one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. The court sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole. In 2019, defendant filed his Petition seeking resentencing on the murder count pursuant to section 1170.95. The court denied the Petition on the grounds Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4; SB 1437), the legislation which added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code, is unconstitutional and unenforceable, because it improperly amended Proposition 7 and Proposition 115. Defendant’s briefs, and an amicus curiae brief filed by the Attorney General in support of defendant (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(c)(7)), all argue the trial court erred. The respondent’s brief filed by the district attorney argues the contrary. We conclude the trial court erred by ruling SB 1437 unconstitutional. Consequently, we reverse the order denying the Petition, and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to consider the Petition on the merits. DISCUSSION The trial court did not determine whether defendant qualified for relief under section 1170.95, but instead denied the Petition solely on the ground SB 1437 violated article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution because: (1) it constituted a legislative amendment of Proposition 7 (which increased the penalty for first and second degree murder) “without the electorate’s approval,” and (2) it amended Proposition 115 (which added to the lists of crimes warranting a first degree felony