DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying her petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 based on the finding that SB 1437 is unconstitutional. We agree. SB 1437, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, amended the definition of murder in sections 188 and 189 to

2 narrow the scope of the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2–3.) The measure also added section 1170.95 to establish a procedure whereby persons previously convicted of murder, who could not be convicted under the new definitions, could petition to have their convictions vacated. “If the petitioner is found eligible for relief, the murder conviction must be vacated and the petitioner must be resentenced ‘on any remaining counts in the same manner as if the petitioner had not been previously . . . sentenced, provided that the new sentence, if any, is not greater than the initial sentence.’ (§ 1170.95, subd. (d)(1).)” (People v. Bucio (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 300, 307 (Bucio).) After appellant filed her opening brief, our colleagues in Division One of the Fourth Appellate District issued two opinions upholding the constitutionality of SB 1437. (People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, review denied February 19, 2020, S259700 (Gooden) [SB 1437 did not amend Propositions 7 and 115]; People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, review denied February 19, 2020, S259835 (Lamoureux) [SB 1437 did not unconstitutionally amend Propositions 7 and 115 and did not violate the separations of powers doctrine or Marsy’s Law].) After briefing was completed, we issued an opinion following Gooden and Lamoureux in rejecting all four of the constitutional challenges at issue in this appeal. (Bucio, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 306.) Since then, numerous other courts have issued opinions rejecting identical constitutional challenges to SB 1437. (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207; People. v. Lopez (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 589; People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480 ; People v. Smith

3 (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 85; People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762; People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740.) Although the People address Gooden and Lamoureux in their respondent’s brief, they did not submit any supplemental briefs addressing Bucio or the numerous other cases uniformly holding that SB 1437 is constitutional.2 Because we have already rejected all four of the grounds upon which the trial court in this case found SB 1437 to be unconstitutional (Bucio, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 306), and the People have declined to address that decision or the many other recent published decisions that have all reached the same conclusion, we deem it sufficient for present purposes to once again hold—pending a contrary decision by our Supreme Court—that SB 1437 is constitutional.

DISPOSITION

The order dismissing appellant’s section 1170.95 petition is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to consider the merits of the petition.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.

2 We grant the People’s unopposed request for judicial notice of documents regarding the legislative histories of Propositions 7 and 115 and SB 1437. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subs. (c) & (d), 459.)

4 Timothy S. Covello, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo ______________________________

Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dan Dow, District Attorney, Melissa Chabra, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

5