Briggs v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Unpublished Opinion (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An initiative that enacts a variety of statutory reforms is not unconstitutional if its provisions are all reasonably germane to a single, common purpose. Statutory provisions imposing fixed time limits on judicial proceedings will be construed as directive, rather than mandatory, to avoid violating the separation of powers doctrine by materially impairing a core judicial function.
Facts:
- In the November 2016 general election, California voters approved Proposition 66, the 'Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016.'
- The proposition imposed a five-year deadline for state courts to complete the direct appeal and initial state habeas corpus review in capital cases.
- It mandated that initial habeas corpus petitions be filed in or transferred to the court that imposed the sentence, rather than directly in the Supreme Court.
- The measure provided for appeals from superior court decisions on initial capital habeas petitions to be taken to the Courts of Appeal.
- It significantly restricted untimely or successive habeas corpus petitions, generally limiting them to claims of actual innocence or ineligibility for the death penalty.
- The proposition required death-sentenced prisoners to work and pay 70 percent of their wages toward victim restitution.
- It exempted the state's execution protocols from the normal public review requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
- It also altered the governance structure of the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, placing its director under the appointment authority of the Supreme Court.
Procedural Posture:
- Ron Briggs filed an original petition for a writ of mandate and injunctive relief in the California Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 66.
- The California Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the proposition pending its review.
- After receiving opposition papers, the court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's Proposition 66, which enacts various reforms to the state's death penalty system, violate the California Constitution by (1) embracing more than one subject, (2) impairing the constitutional jurisdiction of state courts, (3) violating equal protection principles, or (4) infringing on the separation of powers doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Corrigan, A.C.J.
No, Proposition 66 does not violate the California Constitution. The measure's various provisions are upheld as constitutional, with the significant caveat that its time limits on judicial review must be interpreted as directive rather than mandatory. (1) Single Subject: The proposition does not violate the single-subject rule because all its provisions are 'reasonably germane' to the common purpose of reforming the entire capital punishment system to be more efficient. (2) Jurisdiction: The procedural changes to habeas corpus petitions, such as requiring them to be filed in the sentencing court and allowing appeals to the Court of Appeal, do not unconstitutionally divest any court of its core jurisdiction. Habeas corpus is a separate civil proceeding, not part of the underlying 'criminal case' where the death judgment was rendered, so the Supreme Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the latter is not implicated. (3) Equal Protection: Treating capital prisoners differently regarding successive petitions does not violate equal protection because they are not similarly situated to non-capital prisoners; capital prisoners have unique incentives for delay and are provided with state-funded counsel for their initial habeas petition, justifying stricter rules for subsequent petitions. (4) Separation of Powers: The fixed time limits for judicial review (e.g., the five-year overall limit) would materially impair the judiciary's core function of managing its own docket and rendering reasoned decisions if they were mandatory. To avoid this constitutional conflict, the court, following long-standing precedent, construes these time limits as directive exhortations or goals, not as binding, enforceable deadlines.
Concurring - Liu, J.
Agrees with the majority's conclusion that the five-year time limit is unenforceable, but writes separately to emphasize that the deadline is not grounded in the reality of California's death penalty system. While acknowledging the dissent's point that the voters clearly intended the limit to be mandatory, he concurs with the majority's 'directive' construction because it aligns with precedent used to avoid constitutional conflicts. However, he argues that the five-year limit is so unrealistic and impractical—given the lack of counsel, massive case records, and court backlogs—that it cannot serve as a meaningful benchmark or guide for the Judicial Council. The limit is best understood simply as an 'exhortation' to handle cases expeditiously, consistent with justice.
Dissenting - Cuéllar, J.
Dissents in part, arguing that the five-year deadline and the provision for habeas appeals to the Court of Appeal are unconstitutional. (1) Separation of Powers: The majority engages in a 'bait-and-switch' by construing the five-year limit as a non-binding 'exhortation.' The ballot materials and statutory text clearly show the voters intended an enforceable, mandatory deadline. The court should respect that intent and strike down the provision as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, rather than rewriting it to mean something the voters did not enact. (2) Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court's exclusive appellate jurisdiction 'when judgment of death has been pronounced' should extend to all proceedings attacking that judgment, including habeas corpus appeals. This interpretation is necessary to ensure consistent and evenhanded application of the death penalty, is supported by legislative history (Penal Code § 1506), and aligns with the practice in nearly all other death penalty states. The provision sending these appeals to the Court of Appeal is therefore unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision preserves a major voter-enacted reform to California's death penalty system while simultaneously protecting the judiciary's core authority from legislative encroachment. By interpreting the initiative's strict time limits as 'directive' goals rather than mandatory deadlines, the court avoids invalidating the entire proposition on separation of powers grounds but significantly weakens the initiative's central promise of a fixed, enforceable timeline for capital appeals. This ruling reinforces a long line of California jurisprudence that courts will construe facially mandatory procedural statutes in a non-mandatory way to preserve their inherent power over docket management and the administration of justice. The decision signals to future drafters of legislation and initiatives that attempts to impose rigid deadlines on judicial decision-making will likely be rendered advisory by the courts.
