Reducing a Sentence Under SB 1437 — A Top CA Appeals Lawyer Explains

While the California Attorney General has supported SB 1437 from the start, district attorney’s offices around the state deal with SB 1437 differently. Some counties accept that the law is constitutional and only challenge whether it applies specifically to certain defendants based on the unique facts of those cases. Several counties (such as Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Clara) have challenged the constitutionality of SB 1437 under many different theories:

1. SB 1437 improperly amends Proposition 7, the 1978 death penalty initiative.
2. SB 1437 improperly amends Proposition 115, a 1990 initiative which amended felony murder.
3. SB 1437 deprives crime victims of rights given by “Marsy’s Law” — Proposition 9, a 2008 initiative.
4. SB 1437 violates the “separation of powers” concept (that different branches of government should not interfere with each other) by taking away power from the executive branch to reopen and overturn people’s sentences.
5. SB 1437 violates the Eighth Amendment’s rule requiring narrow categories of murder which are eligible for the death penalty.

The good news is that SB 1437 has been expressly deemed constitutional under most of the challenges brought so far, though the Eighth Amendment challenge is arguably still unresolved.

In People v. Superior Court (2019) 42 Cal App 5th 270, the California Court of Appeals decided that SB 1437 does not improperly amend prior propositions. In People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal App 5th 241, the same court decided that SB 1437 does not violate separation of powers or deprive crime victims of rights under “Marsy’s Law.” The California Supreme Court denied review of both cases, so these opinions are now final and binding law. Those trial courts that have addressed the prosecution’s Eighth Amendment arguments have focused instead on whether SB 1437 improperly amended previous propositions.

Both. A “principal” is one who personally does the act that results in the victim’s death. “Aiders and Abettors” are individuals who either help or encourage the “principal” to do the act that results in the victim’s death. The abolition of the old felony murder doctrine means that helpers and encouragers can be resentenced. However, principals may also be resentenced where they did not act with express or implied malice (see discussion above) in engaging in the underlying and inherently dangerous felony that caused the victim’s death.

Arguably, yes. You can be convicted of murder if you do a “provocative act,” such as engaging in a gunfight, that causes someone else, who is not your accomplice, to kill someone. See generally 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal Criminal Law (2017), Crimes Against the Person, §§ 207-08. Caselaw strongly suggests that “provocative act” murder is a form of natural and probable consequences liability, which has been abolished by SB 1437. People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal 4th 643, 655-56; CALCRIM 560-61. “Provocative act” murder is another concept that allows someone to be convicted of murder without acting with the required mental state, which is what SB 1437 seeks to prevent. This question is currently on appeal without any binding decisions either way.

If the jury or judge determined at trial that you were not a “major participant” or did not act with “reckless indifference to life,” you are entitled to a resentencing without the need for a hearing.

Unfortunately, no. The only way to raise an SB 1437 claim is to file a PC 1170.95 petition. In re Cobbs (2019) 42 Cal App 5th 1073.

The question of what records a court may consider and during which stages of PC 1170.95 review the court may consider these records is currently on appeal. The California Court of Appeals has held that a court may look beyond the petition’s conclusory statements that the defendant is entitled to relief to documents from the “record of conviction.” People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal App 5th 1128.

The statute does not expressly authorize the court to consider the “record of conviction” in determining whether you have satisfied the prima facie requirement to schedule a hearing and order the prosecution to respond since the “record of conviction” is to be considered during the merits hearing.

However, given the many summary denials pro per individuals have faced, it is essential to obtain and attach all beneficial documents from your “record of conviction” and minimize potentially harmful facts or holdings.

The Court of Appeals has permitted the trial courts to consider previous appellate opinions filed in a defendant’s case. People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal App 5th 1128. However, it is very important to argue that consideration of prior appellate opinions should be limited to their holdings on what findings jurors necessarily made.

Trial courts will be tempted to read statements of facts contained in prior appellate opinions as definitive and therefore make their own factual findings in reliance on those statements. However, it would be extremely dangerous to allow this without reference to the entire trial transcript or without allowing additional evidence at a hearing on the petition.

Finally, some trial courts have looked at even less reliable materials such as preliminary hearing transcripts and police reports, which are not intended to present a full development of the facts or reflect any defense evidence.

You should argue that the Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, standard applies, that the prosecution must prove that the prior jury actually relied on a legally valid theory or otherwise made all the findings necessary for conviction. This is the only theory that respects the defendant’s right to a jury determination of every fact necessary for conviction on a valid theory.

This is one of three competing views and is the most favorable to defendants. The statute requires the prosecutor to prove your ineligibility for resentencing “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is a term of art that is susceptible to different interpretations.

Retired Judge J. Richard Couzens of the Placer County Superior Court authored a memorandum advocating for an intermediate interpretation that requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of first or second-degree murder under a valid theory.

The prosecution will likely argue for sufficiency review, which is least favorable to defendants, and merely assesses whether the evidence is sufficient that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty under the revised homicide statutes.

There are no appellate cases yet establishing the standard for relief.