Latest Case: People v. Bucio (Criminal Law)

Pro-Gun Justices Announce Their Agenda While the Supreme Court Bides It Time on Gun Rights

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court deferring deciding on a Second Amendment issue presented by a New York City law that prohibited gun owners from transporting their guns out of the city. Sarat points out that the issue that divided the Court’s conservative justices in this case was not whether to radically expand the protections of the Second Amendment, but when and how to do so.

Read More

People v. Bucio

Docket: B299688(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 27, 2020

Judge: Tangeman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of robbery and first degree murder during the course of a robbery. After the enactment of Senate Bill 1437 in 2018, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. SB 1437 amended the felony-murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder. The Court of Appeal joined the Fourth Appellate District in holding that SB 1437 is constitutional. The court held that SB 1437 does not amend Propositions 7 and 115; the District Attorney's contention that section 1170.95 conflicts with the Victim Bill of Rights Act of 2008 lacks merit; and section 1170.95 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, because it does not infringe upon the governor's commutation power and does not infringe upon the judiciary's power to resolve specific controversies. Therefore, the trial court erred by finding SB 1437 unconstitutional. The court reversed the judgment.