We know there were two published cases that opined that SB1437 is Constitutional as stated in our November BLOG. We also know that both were Published by the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One: People v. Lamoureux (D075794) and People v. Superior Court (Gooden/Dominguez) (D75787 and D75790).
As we anticipated from our last month Blog:
We believed that People v. Lamoureux and People v. Superior Court (Gooden/Dominguez) would be petitioned to the California Supreme Court.
Well.. YES, A petition for review was filed in Gooden on December 19, 2019 and a petition for review in Lamoureux was filed on December 26, 2019 to the California Supreme Court. I assume Review will be granted by the California Supreme Court on these cases in early 2020.
Still up to date we believe that the Orange County Superior Courts have, so far, adopted the position that SB 1437 is unconstitutional. We are now keeping our eyes on case number G057510, People v. Solis pending in the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three. The case is fully briefed, but Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled. As a reminder - Oral argument has NOT been scheduled yet, and probably won't be until early this year (attorney unavailability noted out to 02/18/20, last checked)
IN THE DIFFERENT TRIAL COURTS: A BIG MESS
There are many issues in the Trial Courts. The DAs are trying to come up with "new theory" of Murder to keep the inmates incarcerated. Some DA's are trying to bring in (as new evidence) the Parole Suitability Hearing transcripts from CDCR (prisons).
Some Judges are overstepping their Boundary / Jurisdiction (i.e. LA County) by resentencing a 1st degree murder to a 2nd degree murder without an information/indictment nor proving each element of the crime Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. At this point- it is unclear -- If the DA did proceed by way of new information or indictment, would there be a double jeopardy issue? Unknown
We hope a Notice of Appeal (NOA) will be filed on this injustice.
PRELIMINARY FILINGs of SB1437 [PC 1170.95 resentencing petition] by inmates: BEWARE
The 2d District, Division 1, has issued a published opinion in Vince Lewis, B295998, affirming a summary denial of an 1170.95 petition prior to appointment of counsel. They hold that at the initial step, prior to appointment of counsel, the trial court may consider the "record of conviction", including the opinion on direct appeal, and summarily deny the petition on that basis alone. It appears that different Public Defenders regions are taking action to try to salvage some of these cases that the Judge may have wrongfully denied the inmates' Petitions, before s/he had the advantage of having Counsel represent them.
Let's stay tune for the on-going development of the new law and its proper and improper execution at the Trial Court Level