People v. Flores CA4/3

Filed 2/10/21 P. v. Flores 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058216

v. (Super. Ct. No. 94CF2726)

VICTOR MANUEL FLORES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2019, defendant Victor Manuel Flores petitioned the superior court to vacate his 1995 first degree murder conviction and to resentence him pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), which also amended sections 188 and 189 to limit accomplice liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and the felony-murder rule. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.) Under section 1170.95, qualifying defendants can petition the superior court to have their murder convictions vacated and to be resentenced. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) Here, the court did not determine whether defendant qualified for such relief; instead, the court denied the petition on the ground that Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutionally amends statutes approved by voters with Proposition 7 in 1978 and Proposition 115 in 1990. Appealing from the order denying his petition, defendant argues Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional because it does not amend either Proposition 7 or Proposition 115.2 We agree. Since the trial court’s ruling, Senate Bill 1437 has been upheld as constitutional by panels of this court (People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740; People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480) and by our colleagues in Division One of this district (People v. Superior Court (Gooden) 42 Cal.App.5th 270; People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241) and Division Two (People v. Lippert (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 304; People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46). Several other appellate districts have concurred. (People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553, 560-561 [3d App. Dist.]; People v. Murillo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 160, 166, fn. 3 [2d App. Dist., Div. 1]; People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1053 [5th App. Dist.]; People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51