People v. Richardson CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Bernardino · No. FSB048987
- Trial judge
- Brian S. McCarville
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Judith D. McConnell (author), Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court struck Richardson's petition to vacate his murder convictions under Penal Code section 1170.95, ruling that Senate Bill No. 1437 was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal reversed the order, holding that Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional based on its prior decisions in People v. Lamoureux and People v. Superior Court (Gooden).
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order striking Richardson's petition to vacate murder convictions under Penal Code section 1170.95“Because the trial court ordered the resentencing petition stricken based solely on the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1437, the order striking the resentencing petition must be reversed.” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court concluded the trial court erred because it relied on a constitutional defect in Senate Bill No. 1437 that the appellate court had already rejected in companion cases. The opinion does not explicitly state a standard of review for the trial court's constitutional determination, though it implies de novo review by incorporating its own prior analysis. I agree with the court because the opinion relies on binding precedent from the same district (Lamoureux and Gooden) which held the statute constitutional, making the trial court's contrary conclusion legally incorrect. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 — Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional and does not violate the separation of powers or initiative measures.
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270 — Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional and does not violate the separation of powers or initiative measures.
- relied: People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448 — Supports the procedural mechanism for granting judicial notice of prior opinions in the same case.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the law of the case doctrine by incorporating the reasoning from its own prior published decisions (Lamoureux and Gooden) which resolved the constitutional challenge. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it provides no independent analysis of the constitutional issues, relying entirely on cross-reference, which limits its utility for understanding the specific legal reasoning applied to this defendant's record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Bernardino Superior Court granted the People's motion to strike Darwin Richardson's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition, finding that Senate Bill No. 1437 unconstitutionally amended a voter initiative (Proposition 7 and/or Proposition 115). The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, reversed in a 2-1 decision, incorporating by reference its prior holdings in People v. Lamoureux and People v. Superior Court (Gooden) that Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional, with Justice O'Rourke dissenting on the grounds stated in his prior dissents in those cases.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Order granting the People's motion to strike the section 1170.95 resentencing petition on the ground that Senate Bill No. 1437 unconstitutionally amends Proposition 7 and/or Proposition 115 without voter approval“Because the trial court ordered the resentencing petition stricken based solely on the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1437, the order striking the resentencing petition must be reversed.” | de novo | error | agree with court The opinion does not expressly state a standard of review, but the constitutionality of a statute is a pure question of law reviewed independently. The majority resolved the issue by incorporating its reasoning from Lamoureux and Gooden, which held that Senate Bill No. 1437 does not amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115, does not violate separation of powers, and does not contravene Marsy's Law. By the time of this decision, every published Court of Appeal decision to address the question had reached the same conclusion, and no contrary binding authority existed. Because the trial court's order rested solely on the unconstitutionality theory, reversal necessarily followed. The dissent simply adheres to its prior view and offers no new analysis. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 — Senate Bill No. 1437 and section 1170.95 do not unconstitutionally amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115, do not violate separation of powers, and do not contravene Marsy's Law.
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270 — Senate Bill No. 1437's amendments to sections 188 and 189 do not amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115 and are constitutional.
- relied: People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553 — Follows Lamoureux and Gooden in upholding the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1437.
- relied: People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041 — Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional and does not improperly amend voter initiatives.
- relied: People v. Lopez (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589 — Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional.
- relied: People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762 — Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional and does not amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115.
- relied: People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740 — Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional and does not amend Proposition 7 or Proposition 115.
- relied: People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448 — A court may take judicial notice of a prior appellate opinion in the defendant's own case.
The appellate opinion: sound — The majority correctly identified that the trial court's order rested solely on the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1437, and it disposed of that question by incorporating its own published holdings in Lamoureux and Gooden, which were consistent with every other published appellate decision on the issue at the time. The opinion is brief and does not independently re-analyze the People's arguments, but incorporation by reference of fully reasoned published decisions on an identical legal question is a legitimate and complete answer, and the dissent likewise relies only on previously stated grounds.
Opinion
Filed 12/4/20 P. v. Richardson CA4/1 See dissenting opinion 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D076747
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB048987)
DARWIN LAMONT RICHARDSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino, Brian S. McCarville, Judge. Reversed. Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jason Anderson, District Attorney, and James R. Secord, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2008, a jury convicted defendant Darwin Richardson of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and two counts of robbery 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. (§ 211), found that a principal was armed with a handgun during the commission of the crimes (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and returned felony-murder and multiple-murder special circumstance findings (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17)(A)). (People v. White (Sept. 16, 2011, D059000, D059032) [nonpub. opn.].) Richardson was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole on the felony murder counts, one year for a firearm enhancement on one of the murder counts, and four years on the robbery counts to be served consecutively to the murder terms. (Ibid.) On appeal, this court reversed the multiple-murder special circumstance finding and modified the judgment to stay execution of the sentences for the robbery counts, but in all other respects affirmed the judgment.2 (Ibid.) In 2018, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2019, “to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Senate Bill No. 1437 amended sections 188 and 189, the statutory provisions pertaining to malice and the degrees of murder, respectively. (Id., §§ 2–3.) It also added section 1170.95, which permits persons with murder convictions to petition their sentencing courts to vacate their murder convictions and to be resentenced on any remaining counts if, among other conditions, they could not be convicted of murder now based on the amendments to sections 188 and 189. (Id., § 4.)
2 We grant the People’s request for judicial notice of our opinion in Richardson’s direct appeal. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); see People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 458.) 2 In 2019, Richardson filed a petition to vacate his murder convictions and to be resentenced under section 1170.95. The People moved to strike Richardson’s resentencing petition. They argued Senate Bill No. 1437 unconstitutionally amends 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)) without voter approval, violates the separation of powers doctrine, and contravenes Marsy’s Law (Prop. 9, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2008)). The trial court granted the motion to strike, finding that Senate Bill No. 1437 amends “the initiative” (presumably referring to Proposition 7 or Proposition 115, or perhaps both measures). Richardson appeals the order striking his resentencing petition. In a pair of companion opinions issued shortly after the trial court struck Richardson’s resentencing petition, a divided panel of this court rejected the People’s arguments and concluded that Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional. (People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Lamoureux); People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270 (Gooden).) Since then, several other Courts of Appeal have followed suit. (People v. Lombardo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 553; People v. Murillo (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 160; People v. Lippert (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 304; People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041; People v. Superior Court of Butte County (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896; People v. Lopez (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207; People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480; People v. Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 85, review granted July 22, 2020, S262835; People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300; People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762; People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740; but see Lippert, at p. 314 (dis. opn. of Ramirez, J.); Nash, at p. 1084 (con. & dis. opn. of Poochigian, J.).)
3 We need not rehash the bases for our Gooden and Lamoureux decisions. Rather, we incorporate by reference our analyses from those decisions and conclude, for the reasons expressed therein, that Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional.3 Because the trial court ordered the resentencing petition stricken based solely on the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 1437, the order striking the resentencing petition must be reversed. DISPOSITION The order is reversed.
McCONNELL, P. J.
I CONCUR:
AARON, J.
3 The People requested judicial notice of a legislative document pertaining to a proposed bill that would have amended section 189, but was never enacted into law. We deny the request as irrelevant to the disposition of the appeal. 4 O’Rourke, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent on the grounds previously expressed in People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241 and People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270. For the reasons stated, I would affirm the trial court’s order denying Richardson’s resentencing petition brought under Penal Code section 1170.95.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Woodell S060180 · 1998-02-11