In People v. Martinez, S231826the Supreme Court held last Thursday that Proposition 47 — the 2014 initiative passed to reduce punishment for certain theft- and drug-related crimes — allows a felon to seek resentencing for a drug possession conviction, but not a drug transportation conviction.  The court’s unanimous opinion concluded this is so even though the Legislature in 2013 — after the defendant’s conviction and before Proposition 47 — narrowed the transportation crime by adding an intent-to-sell element.  The court stated, “We infer that the {Proposition 47] electorate reasonably could have understood that drug possession and drug transportation crimes are distinct and merit different treatment under the proposition.”

Although the court’s opinion was unanimous, four justices also signed a concurring opinion.  The concurring justices suggest Legislative action to give the relief that the court is denying, because, they say, “there is reason to wonder whether excluding individuals like Martinez from the ameliorative scope of Proposition 47 was an oversight.”  Justice Liu, who wrote the court’s opinion, is also the concurrence’s author, and he is joined by Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Leondra Kruger and pro tem Justice John Segal.  Majority separate opinions happen sometimes, including as recently as three weeks ago.

The court affirmed the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal, although it did hold that some of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in People v. Page.