People v. Suknaich CA4/3

Filed 9/21/20 P. v. Suknaich 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G057828

v. (Super. Ct. No. 03WF0232)

JAMES SUKNAICH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Request for judicial notice granted. William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Seton B. Hunt, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 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. * * *

This is an appeal from an order summarily denying defendant’s petition to 1 dismiss his murder conviction. (Pen. Code, § 1170.95.) The trial court denied the petition because it found that the enabling legislation violates the California Constitution. (Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.); Senate Bill 1437.) We disagree. Senate Bill 1437 did not directly amend any initiative statutes. Senate Bill 1437 also did not indirectly amend any initiative measures. We therefore reverse and remand so that defendant’s section 1170.95 petition can be considered on its merits.

I PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2005, a jury found defendant James Suknaich guilty of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of 15 years to life. In 2019, defendant filed a section 1170.95 petition. Defendant averred, “I was convicted of 2nd degree murder in 2005” and “I could not now be convicted . . . because of changes to Penal Code section[s] 188 or 189, made effective January 1, 2019 . . . .” The prosecution argued “Senate Bill 1437 violates the California Constitution.” In the alternative, the prosecution argued under section 1170.95, defendant “is statutorily 2 ineligible.” The trial court filed a statement of decision denying defendant’s section 1170.95 petition. The court found “that Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.”