People v. Quan CA4/3

Filed 5/24/21 P. v. Quan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058451

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06CF2227)

QUANG VAN QUAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2010, a jury found appellant Quang Van Quan guilty of multiple counts of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187. subd. (a); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The jury found true two special circumstance allegations that the murders took place during the commission of burglary and robbery or attempted robbery. Quan directly appealed his convictions and we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Quan (Jun. 21, 2012, G044609) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437), which limited accomplice liability under the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine by amending sections 188 and 189. (§§ 188, 189; see People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740, 755 (Cruz); People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762, 768 (Solis).) Senate Bill 1437 also implemented a process allowing persons previously convicted of murder under a natural and probable consequences theory or felony murder to petition the superior court for vacation of their murder convictions and for resentencing, if they could not be convicted of murder based on the amendments to sections 188 and 189. (§ 1170.95.) On March 18, 2019, Quan filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The petition alleged he was convicted of first degree murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and that under Senate Bill 1437 he now could not be convicted of murder. The trial court denied the petition on the sole basis that Senate Bill 1437 was unconstitutional because it improperly amended Propositions 7 and 115. In two published opinions, this court concluded Senate Bill 1437 is constitutional because it neither adds any particular provision to nor subtracts any particular provision from either Proposition 7 or Proposition 115. (Cruz, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 747; Solis, supra, 46 Cal.App.5th at p. 769.) We decline to revisit those decisions. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order and direct the court to consider the merits of Quan’s petition.