People v. Morales CA3

Filed 1/27/21 P. v. Morales CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C089377

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR035695)

ANTONIO LOREDO MORALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Antonio Laredo Morales appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court based its denial on its conclusion that Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), which provides for resentencing, unconstitutionally amends two initiative measures approved by the voters.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

We conclude the trial court erred in ruling that Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutionally amends the voter initiative measures. We also reject additional arguments asserted by the District Attorney challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437. Accordingly, we will reverse the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND After Jesus Alderete was stabbed to death during a gang-related fight on September 11, 2003, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder with a gang enhancement and of participation in a criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in prison for second degree murder with a concurrent term of 15 years to life for the gang enhancement. The trial court also imposed a determinate term of three years for the substantive gang crime and added one year for a prior prison term. (People v. Morales (Feb. 27, 2006, C047728) [nonpub. opn.].) Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1437 “amend[ed] 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).) As relevant here, Senate Bill 1437 added section 188, subdivision (a)(3), which provides that malice will not be imputed based solely on participation in a crime. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 2.) It also added subdivision (e) to section 189 to provide that a person is liable for murder only if the person was the actual killer, or acted with intent to kill, or was a major participant in an underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 3.) Senate Bill 1437 added section 1170.95, which permits a person convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to file a petition in the trial court to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on