People v. Todd CA3

Filed 9/3/20 P. v. Todd CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090356

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF952576)

v.

MICHAEL ANDRE TODD,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1996, defendant Michael Andre Todd was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and one count of torture (§ 206). Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder and his sentence for torture was stayed pursuant to section 654. Following the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437), defendant filed a petition for resentencing under newly enacted section 1170.95.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

The District Attorney for Yolo County opposed defendant’s petition, arguing in pertinent part that Senate Bill 1437 is an unconstitutional amendment of two prior initiative measures—Proposition 7 (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978)) and Proposition 115 (Prop. 115, as approved by voters, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990)). The Yolo County Superior Court agreed with the District Attorney and denied defendant’s request for resentencing without prejudice. Defendant timely appealed. In People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896 (Ferraro), this court recently joined the other appellate courts who have addressed the issue in concluding that Senate Bill 1437 is not an invalid amendment of either Propositions 7 or 115 because the legislation did not add to or take away from any provision in either initiative. (See, e.g., People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300, 311-312; People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740, 747 (Cruz); People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762, 769; People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 251; People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, 275 (Gooden).) For the reasons discussed in Ferraro, we will reverse the superior court’s order denying defendant’s petition and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND2 Senate Bill 1437, which became effective on January 1, 2019, was enacted “to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) The bill amended section 188 to provide: “Except as stated in