People v. Hanley CA1/5

Filed 10/7/20 P. v. Hanley CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159155 v. DAVID VINCENT HANLEY, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. CR995701DS)

“In 2018, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), legislation that prospectively amended the mens rea requirements for the offense of murder and restricted the circumstances under which a person can be liable for murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.)” (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, 246.) Senate Bill 1437 added Penal Code section 1170.95,1 which authorizes a defendant previously convicted of felony-murder

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to file a petition seeking vacation of the conviction and resentencing.2 Here, the trial court denied the section 1170.95 petition of appellant and defendant David Vincent Hanley (Appellant) to have his felony-murder conviction vacated. The trial court held Senate Bill 1437 violated the separation of powers doctrine, the right of victims to finality of judgments under the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (Prop. 9, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008)), and the prosecution’s right to trial by jury. Appellant appealed. On appeal, respondent District Attorney of Humboldt County (Respondent), does not attempt to defend the trial court’s conclusions based on Proposition 9 and the prosecution’s right to jury trial. Instead, Respondent argues Senate Bill 1437 violates the separation of powers doctrine; unconstitutionally amends Proposition 7, a voter initiative that increased the punishments for persons convicted of murder (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978)); and unconstitutionally amends Proposition 115, a voter initiative that augmented the list of predicate