Opinion ID: 2638434
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Strike the Felony-murder Special Circumstance

Text: Defendant demurred to the robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation because the three-year statute of limitations had run on the underlying robbery. (§ 801.) He cited People v. Superior Court ( Jennings ) (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 636, 641-644, 228 Cal.Rptr. 357 ( Jennings ), in support of his motion, but admitted that this court had expressly disapproved Jennings in People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 18, footnote 7, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843 ( Morris ). [26] Nevertheless, he argued that Jennings had established a judicially created statute of limitations, that Morris repealed that rule, and that applying that repeal retroactively to his case violates his right to due process. ( Bouie v. City of Columbia, supra, 378 U.S. at p. 353, 84 S.Ct. 1697.) The trial court denied the motion. Defendant renews the argument here, claiming our decision in Morris effected an unforeseeable enlargement of a criminal statute and that applying it to his case violated his right to due process. He is mistaken, because the premise of his argument is faulty. Jennings did not create a judicially created rule akin to a statute of limitations that was enforceable until overruled by this court. Jennings merely was wrong on the law. As we explained in Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d at page 17, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843, [t]he courts have long permitted felony-murder prosecutions notwithstanding the expiration of the felony statute of limitations for the simple reason that the prosecution is for murder, not for the underlying felony. (Italics omitted.) Jennings, then, did not establish a general rule, and Morris did not effect an enlargement of a criminal statute, unforeseen or otherwise. We thus reject defendant's due process argument.