The California Supreme Court has agreed a man convicted of first-degree murder after shooting rival gang members can continue to seek sentencing relief under retroactive application of a new state law because his judgment is not yet legally final.
A San Bernadino County Superior Court jury convicted Oscar Lopez of murder in connection with a 2014 incident in which he and another man fired guns from their car into another vehicle, killing one man and injuring another. Lopez asked the Fourth District California Appellate Court to reduce his 141-year prison term, which also hinged on the jury finding him guilty of attempted premeditated murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, possession of a gun despite a prior felony, and committing the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang
That panel sided with Lopez, modifying and conditionally reversing the sentence. It remanded the issue to superior court with instructions to consider two laws enacted in the 2017-2018 state legislative session that expanded judicial authority to strike or dismiss certain penalty enhancements. Specific to Lopez, directions addressed enhancements for gun charges and prior serious felony convictions.
While that process was pending, lawmakers in the 2021-2022 session again changed crime laws, specifically in a state gang statute through Assembly Bill 333, and applied those changes retroactively to all cases classified as nonfinal under the terms of a 1965 California Supreme Court opinion, People v. Estrada. But during an October 2022 resentencing hearing, San Bernadino County Judge Bridgid MCann didn’t apply the Bill 333 changes on the grounds Lopez’s conviction was final.
On a second appeal, the Fourth District panel agreed the judgment was not final as defined under Estrada, but also said Judge McCann didn’t have jurisdiction to reconsider the penalty enhancements based on the terms of its initial ruling. The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Lopez was entitled to retroactive application of the new law.
Justice Goodwin Liu wrote the 7-0 opinion, filed Jan. 23.
The court said it is obvious lawmakers intended for penalty reduction legislation to apply as broadly as possible. Justice Liu quoted Estrada, which held: “This intent seems obvious, because to hold otherwise would be to conclude that the Legislature was motivated by a desire for vengeance, a conclusion not permitted in view of modern theories of penology.”
The legal question, Liu explained, redounds to an understanding of “final judgment,” and as directly applied to Lopez the concern is, again from Estrada, “whether the criminal prosecution or proceeding as a whole is complete.” Both parties agreed the appeals panel incorrectly found Bill 333 could not apply on a jurisdictional basis, but the Attorney General’s Office insisted Lopez’s case is final and can’t be reopened.
However, Liu wrote, the law took effect Jan. 1, 2022, while Lopez’s case was still pending in San Bernadino County after bouncing back from the appellate level. Attorney General Rob Bonta argued for distinguishing between Lopez’s sentence, which he acknowledged wasn’t final, and his conviction, notably the enhancement for connection with gang activity.
But the Supreme Court ruled that if “any aspect of a case is on appeal from sentencing, the ‘case’ or ‘prosecution’ has not been reduced to final judgment for Estrada purposes.” It said the cases Bonta introduced to support his position were distinguishable from Lopez’s situation and rejected his position that a ruling in favor of Lopez would burden courts by forcing them to relitigate gang enhancement rulings.
“While the Attorney General raises practical concerns, he does not identify any constitutional obstacles to the retroactive application of Assembly Bill 333” regarding Lopez, Liu wrote, noting a presumption “the Legislature was aware that retroactive application of Assembly Bill 333 would result in the retrial of gang offenses and enhancements.”
Lopez was represented by Rachel Varnell, as appointed by the California Supreme Court. He was backed by support briefs from several public defender offices, as well as California Appellate Defense Counsel.
The attorney general’s press office declined to comment.