People v. Steward CA3

Filed 4/7/21 P. v. Steward CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091715

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 99F01485)

v.

TROY A. STEWARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Troy A. Steward was charged with battery on a correctional officer, and he was committed to Atascadero State Hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity. Following the passage of Assembly Bill No. 103 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Assem. Bill 103), defendant filed a petition for a reduction of his commitment under newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.127.1 Section 1170.127 allows persons who are

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to the state hospital (NGI committees) to obtain relief that parallels Three Strikes relief for those found guilty of a crime. The superior court denied defendant’s petition, concluding that Assembly Bill 103 is an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. We will reverse the superior court’s order denying defendant’s petition and remand for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 20, 2000, defendant was committed to Atascadero State Hospital for a term of 25 years to life after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, as charged under section 4501.5, battery on a correctional officer, and the Three Strikes law. On July 12, 2019, defendant filed a petition for reduction of his term of confinement under sections 1170.126 and 1170.127. The superior court issued an order directing the parties to address the question of whether section 1170.127 was unconstitutional. The district attorney’s office did not timely file a responsive brief, and the superior court rejected an attempt to submit a late brief for failure to offer an adequate explanation for the untimely filing. Following a hearing, the court issued a written opinion finding section 1170.127 invalid and unconstitutional, reasoning that Assembly Bill 103 amended Proposition 36 (by purportedly extending Proposition 36’s relief to NGI committees) without meeting the two-thirds threshold required under the California Constitution. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the superior court erred in determining that Assembly Bill 103 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 36.2 The People agree and request that we reverse and remand for further proceedings under section 1170.127.