People v. Paz CA4/3

Filed 2/4/21 P. v. Paz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058357

v. (Super. Ct. No. 03CF3338)

VERONICA PAZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Veronica Paz challenges an order denying her petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which restricts the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder. The trial court ruled this restriction unlawfully amended Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 in violation of the California Constitution. At the time the trial court rendered its decision, in September 2019, the constitutionality of SB 1437 was an open question. However, since then, this court, and every other appellate court that has considered the issue, has consistently upheld SB 1437 against claims it violates the state Constitution. Thus, it is hardly surprising no respondent’s brief was filed in this appeal. That doesn’t mean appellant wins hands down, but since we have not been provided any reason to depart from the tide of precedent on the issue, we find SB 1437 to be a constitutional legislative enactment. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s ruling to the contrary and remand for further proceedings. DISCUSSION In 2006, appellant was convicted by jury of first degree murder for aiding and abetting the shooting death of Diego Gonzalez. On appeal, we reversed the conviction due to instructional error, and appellant subsequently pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree. She is currently serving an indeterminate prison term of 15 years to life for that offense. Following the enactment of SB 1437 in 2018, appellant petitioned the trial court to vacate her conviction and resentence her pursuant to that measure. Appellant alleged she was entitled to this relief because she did not personally kill Gonzalez, and she could not be convicted of murder under the new rules respecting vicarious liability that were ushered in by SB 1437. The district attorney opposed the petition on two grounds. He argued first that SB 1437 violates the California Constitution by amending Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 without voter approval. In the alternative, the district attorney argued that even though SB 1437 narrowed the scope of accomplice liability for the crime of