People v. Stewart CA3

Filed 1/29/21 P. v. Stewart CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090043

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR52974)

v.

DARRYL LEROY STEWART, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2001, defendant Darryl Leroy Stewart, Jr., pled no contest to second degree murder. In 2018, he filed a petition seeking resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95,1 which was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4; Senate Bill No. 1437) and took effect January 1, 2019. The trial court denied defendant’s petition on the basis that Senate Bill No. 1437

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

unconstitutionally amends two initiative measures: Proposition 7 (Prop. 7, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 1978)) and Proposition 115 (Prop. 115, as approved by voters, Primary Elec. (June 5, 1990)). On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in declining to reach the merits of his petition and determining that Senate Bill No. 1437 is unconstitutional.2 Consistent with our recent decisions, and the unanimous conclusion of other appellate courts that have addressed the issue, we conclude Senate Bill No. 1437 is not an invalid amendment of either Proposition 7 or Proposition 115. We see no reason to revisit the reasoning of these decisions. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order. I. BACKGROUND In 2001, defendant pled no contest to second degree murder.3 We dismissed defendant’s appeal for a lack of certificate of probable cause. (People v. Stewart (Feb. 18, 2003, C038731) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2018, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. Defendant checked boxes indicating: (1) a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (2) he pled guilty or no contest to first or second degree murder under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine; and (3) he could not now be convicted of first or second degree murder because of the recent changes to sections 188 and 189. The District Attorney opposed the petition. The trial court directed the parties to file briefs regarding the statute’s constitutionality. The District Attorney argued Senate