People v. Amezola CA4/3

Filed 10/14/20 P. v. Amezola CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058039

v. (Super. Ct. No. 01WF0782)

MANUEL CARDENAS AMEZOLA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Julian W. Bailey, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Requests for judicial notice granted. David M. McKinney, 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 2001, a jury found defendant Manuel Cardenas Amezola guilty of first degree murder, a substantive gang offense, and a related gang allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of 25 years to life. In 2019, defendant filed a section 1170.95 petition. Defendant averred, “I was convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder” and “I could not now be convicted . . . because of changes made to Penal Code §§ 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019.” The prosecution argued “Senate Bill 1437 is unconstitutional.” (Capitalization and boldfacing omitted.) In the alternative, the prosecution argued under section 1170.95, defendant “is 2 not entitled and/or eligible for relief.” (Capitalization and boldfacing omitted.) The trial court filed a statement of decision denying defendant’s section 1170.95 petition: “The court finds Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutional.”