In People v. Lopez, the Supreme Court today holds a defendant convicted of first degree murder, whose sentence was increased by a jury’s finding that he committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang, can challenge the gang enhancement under Assembly Bill No. 333, which limited imposition of the enhancement and was enacted after his conviction. The decision concerns whether the defendant could invoke the ameliorative legislation, legislation which case law says is constitutionally required to have been effective before his judgment became final.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Goodwin Liu notes that “[t]he meaning of finality in the [retroactivity] context is distinct from the issue of whether a judgment is final for purposes of appealability.” In the case before it, the Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for resentencing concerning enhancements other than the gang enhancement and the defendant was awaiting resentencing when the Legislature enacted AB 333.
The court rejects the argument that AB 333 can’t retroactively apply to the defendant because his judgment of conviction and the gang enhancement were final before the statutory changes took effect. “A criminal case is only reduced to a singular, final judgment following the conclusion of the entire criminal case or prosecution,” the court finds, and, “[t]hus, a criminal case in which the sentence is not yet final, including one in which an appellate court has affirmed the conviction and remanded for reconsideration of sentencing-related issues, is not final for [retroactivity] purposes.”
For good measure, the court says the defendant “[o]n remand . . . may renew his arguments that he is entitled to resentencing under [other later-enacted legislation] in light of our recent decisions in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 [see here] and People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024 [see here].”
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s 2-1, partially published opinion. Division Two had disagreed with the Fourth District, Division Three, decision in People v. Salgado (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 376.