Latest 3 Cases: California v. Cruz (Constitutional Law), California v. Cruz (Constitutional Law), California v. Solis (Constitutional Law)

California v. Cruz

Docket: G057564(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 18, 2020

Judge: Raymond J. Ikola

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Alfredo Cruz was convicted of second degree murder in 2010. In 2019, he filed a petition to vacate his murder conviction and asked for resentencing under newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95, enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, sec. 4) which took effect January 1, 2019. Senate Bill 1437 amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine for murder and the felony-murder rule “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.” Senate Bill 1437 also provided for retroactive application of these amendments by creating a process through which qualifying defendants could have their murder convictions vacated and be resentenced. The trial court did not determine whether Defendant qualified for relief, but instead denied the petition on the ground that Senate Bill 1437 was unconstitutional. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred by finding Senate Bill 1437 unconstitutional. The California Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Defendant, defending the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1437 by arguing it amended neither Proposition 7 nor Proposition 115. The Orange County District Attorney (District Attorney), representing the State in this appeal, contended Senate Bill 1437 amended both propositions and was therefore an unconstitutional “intrusion into the voters” initiative powers. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the Legislature’s enactment of Senate Bill 1437 did not undo what the voters accomplished with Proposition 7 or Proposition 115 and therefore the legislation did not violate the constitution. In this opinion and in the concurrently published opinion filed in California v. Solis (Mar. 18, 2020, G057510) __ Cal.App.5th __, the Court of Appeal concluded Senate Bill 1437 was constitutional. The trial court judgment was reversed denying Defendant’s petition, and the matter was remanded for a hearing on the petition’s merits.

California v. Cruz

Docket: E070518(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 18, 2020

Judge: Fields

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-appellant Mario Cruz, Jr. was found by jury guilty as charged of committing several offenses against his former girlfriend, Jane Doe: stalking Jane while a restraining order prohibiting defendant from contacting Jane was in effect (count 1); vandalism of more than $400 (count 2); violating a criminal protective order, by an act or credible threat of violence, within seven years of suffering a prior conviction for violating such an order (counts 3, 6, 7, & 9); and making criminal threats (counts 5 & 8). The court found defendant had one prison prior, and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years four months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the prosecution failed to authenticate the Facebook messages as having been sent to Jane by defendant; (2) his criminal threats convictions in counts 5 and 8 should have been reversed because making a criminal threat was a lesser included offense of stalking, and a person cannot be convicted of both a greater offense and a necessarily included lesser offense; (3) the court erroneously failed to stay, under Penal Code section 654, his sentence on his criminal threats convictions in counts 5 and 8, and his convictions for violating restraining orders in counts 3, 6, 7, and 9, because these convictions arose from the same indivisible course of conduct, and were based on the same intent and objective, as his stalking conviction, namely, his threats to harm Jane and his attempts to convince Jane to resume his and Jane’s romantic relationship between April and August 2016; and (4) the judgment had to be modified to strike defendant’s one-year prison prior enhancement in light of the October 8, 2019 enactment of Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which applied retroactively to all judgments, including defendant’s judgment, which were not final on appeal when the legislation went into effect on January 1, 2020. To the last point, the Court of Appeal concurred, the enhancement should have been stricken in light of the Bill. In all other respects, the Court affirmed judgment.

California v. Solis

Docket: G057510(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 18, 2020

Judge: Richard D. Fybel

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Rogelio Solis, who had been convicted of second degree murder based on the doctrine of natural and probable consequences, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to the newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95, enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, sec. 4) which took effect January 1, 2019. Senate Bill 1437 amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine for murder and the felony-murder rule “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.” Senate Bill 1437 also provided for retroactive application of these amendments by creating a process through which qualifying defendants could have their murder convictions vacated and be resentenced. The Orange County District Attorney opposed defendant’s petition on the ground Senate Bill No. 1437 unconstitutionally amended two voter-approved initiatives. The trial court agreed and denied the petition. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding Senate Bill No. 1437 addressed the elements of the crime of murder and is directed to the mental state and conduct of those accused of murder. "It does not authorize anything the two initiatives prohibited, nor prohibit anything they authorized. Senate Bill No. 1437 neither adds any particular provision to nor subtracts any particular provision from either initiative." The trial court judgment was reversed denying Defendant’s petition, and the matter was remanded for a hearing on the petition’s merits.