California Court of Appeal Oct 14, 2020 No. E073576Unpublished
Filed 10/14/20 P. v. Huerta CA4/2 See Dissenting Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E073576 MF
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV17115)
MARK HUERTA, et al., OPINION
Defendants and Appellants.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E073672
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV17115)
EDDIE HUERTA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
CONSOLIDATED APPEALS from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.
Michael A. Knish, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant Andrew Cabrera.
1
Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant Eddie Huerta.
Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
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 Defendants and Appellants.
Jason Anderson, District Attorney, and James R. Secord, District Attorney, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1999, a jury convicted appellants Eddie Huerta, Mark Huerta, and Andrew
Cabrera of murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. In 2019, all
three petitioned for resentencing under newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95, but
the trial court denied the petitions, finding the provision unconstitutional.
Appellants and the Attorney General, as amicus curiae, defend the
constitutionality of the law. Respondent, the San Bernardino County District Attorney
(hereafter District Attorney), argues the bill which enacted Penal Code section 1170.95,
Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437), unconstitutionally amended Propositions 7 and
115, impermissibly infringes on powers vested in the judicial and executive branches of
government in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and violates victims’ rights
to final judgments under Proposition 9.
2
We follow our decision in People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46 (Johns)
upholding Senate Bill 1437 in its entirety, and therefore conclude appellants are entitled
to have the trial court consider their petitions.
I
FACTS
In 1998, appellants and two others attempted to lure Jose Lizarraga outside his
house by throwing rocks. When he didn’t come out, shots from three different guns were
fired at the house. During the shooting, one of the five potential shooters accidentally
shot and killed another one of the potential shooters, Alfred Cabrera. A jury convicted all
three appellants of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), unlabeled statutory
citations refer to this code), attempted murder (§§ 187, 664), and conspiracy (§ 182,
subd. (a)(1)), and found true firearm and gang enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b) &
(c), 186.22 subds. (b)(1) & (b)(4)). On appeal, this court struck the street gang
enhancements, but otherwise affirmed the judgment.1 (Coronado, supra, E026327).)
1We grant the District Attorney’s request that we take judicial notice of the ballot statements concerning Propositions 7 and 115, certain legislative history documents concerning Senate Bill 1437 and Assembly Bill 3104, and our decision in appellants’ appeals of their convictions. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c) & (d).) We take the facts from our opinion in the appeals of their convictions. (People v. Coronado (Jan. 22 2001, E026327) [nonpub. opn.].)
3
Over a period of three months in 2019, all three appellants petitioned the trial
court for resentencing under then newly enacted section 1170.95, which allows offenders
previously convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine to have their murder convictions vacated if they couldn’t be
convicted of murder under sections 188 or 189 as amended by Senate Bill 1437.
The District Attorney opposed all three petitions, arguing, among other things, that
section 1170.95 was unconstitutional. On August 30, 2019, the trial court denied all three
petitions on the basis that section 1170.95 is unconstitutional because Senate Bill 1437
improperly amended Propositions 7 and 115. The court didn’t determine whether
appellants are eligible for relief on the merits.
Appellants timely appealed the orders denying their petitions.
II
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue section 1170.95 is constitutional and the trial court erred by
denying their petitions on the basis that it is not. The Attorney General agrees. The
District Attorney argues the bill which redefined felony murder and enacted
section 1170.95, Senate Bill 1437, is unconstitutional because it improperly amends
Propositions 7 and 115, violates the separation of powers doctrine, and violates victims’
rights to finality of judgments under Proposition 9.
4
We recently addressed and rejected the same arguments in Johns, supra, 50
Cal.App.5th 46. In that case we held Senate Bill 1437 did not amend Propositions 7 (id.
at pp. 63-65) or 115 (id. at pp. 65-66) and doesn’t violate the separation of powers
doctrine (id. at pp. 66-68) or victims’ rights to finality of judgments as protected in
Proposition 9 (id. at pp. 68-70). In sum, we found Senate Bill 1437 was constitutional.
(Id. at p. 70.)
Here, the District Attorney argues two earlier decisions reaching the same
conclusion, People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 and People v. Superior
Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, were wrongly decided. However, we already
addressed and approved of both of these decisions in Johns, as has every other division of
the Court of Appeal to address the issue by published opinion. (See, e.g., People v. Lopez
(2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589, 601-602 [Second Dist., Div. Two]; People v. Smith (2020) 49
People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300, 311-312 [Second Dist., Div. Six]; People v.
Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553 [Third Dist.]; People v. Cruz (2020) 46
Cal.App.5th 740, 747 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three]; People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th
1041 [Fifth Dist.]; People v. Alaybue, (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207 [Sixth Dist.].)
5
III
DISPOSITION
We reverse the trial court orders denying the petitions and remand for further
proceedings under section 1170.95.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH J. I concur:
McKINSTER J.
6
[The People v. Mark Huerta, et al., E073576, E073672]
RAMIREZ, P.J.
I respectfully dissent. For the reasons that I stated in my dissent in People v.
Lippert (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 304, pet. for rev. filed Sept 17, 2020, I believe Senate Bill
No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) is unconstitutional because (1) it amends Proposition 7,
and (2) it violates the separation of powers.
RAMIREZ P. J.
1
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 1170.95, enacted via Senate Bill 1437, is constitutional and that the trial court erred in denying the appellants' resentencing petitions on constitutional grounds.
Issues
Whether Penal Code section 1170.95 is unconstitutional as an improper amendment to Propositions 7 and 115.
Whether Senate Bill 1437 violates the separation of powers doctrine or victims' rights under Proposition 9.
Disposition. Reversed and remanded.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We follow our decision in People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46 (Johns) upholding Senate Bill 1437 in its entirety, and therefore conclude appellants are entitled to have the trial court consider their petitions.”
“In sum, we found Senate Bill 1437 was constitutional.”