Summary
The California Supreme Court held that Penal Code section 1172.75 may constitutionally be used to recall and resentence a nonserious, nonviolent third-strike offender whose sentence includes invalid prior prison term enhancements. To avoid an unconstitutional amendment of the voter-enacted Three Strikes Reform Act, the court construed section 1172.75 to incorporate the Reform Act’s discretionary public-safety override. The court concluded that the Reform Act’s revised penalty provisions may apply at a section 1172.75 resentencing.
Holdings
- Section 1172.75 permits application of the Reform Act's revised penalty provisions at resentencing for a nonserious, nonviolent third-strike offender whose sentence is recalled because it includes an invalid prior-prison-term enhancement.
- Applying the Reform Act's revised penalty provisions through section 1172.75 does not unconstitutionally amend the Reform Act when section 1172.75 is construed to incorporate the Reform Act's substantive public-safety limitation.
- A defendant resentenced under section 1172.75 need not file a separate section 1170.126 petition or satisfy section 1170.126's two-year filing deadline or good-cause requirement, although the defendant must satisfy the substantive public-safety limitation incorporated from section 1170.126.
- The case must be remanded for a new present-day public-safety determination. If resentencing under the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the superior court must reimpose an indeterminate term; otherwise, and if Guevara is otherwise eligible, it must resentence him under the Reform Act's revised penalty provisions.
Questions Presented
- Whether Penal Code section 1172.75, when applied to a nonserious, nonviolent third-strike offender serving an indeterminate sentence, permits application of the Reform Act's reduced sentencing provisions.
- Whether applying the Reform Act's reduced sentencing provisions through section 1172.75 unconstitutionally amends voter-enacted Penal Code section 1170.126 in violation of article II, section 10 of the California Constitution.
- Whether section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126's discretionary public-safety determination while not requiring the procedural requirements applicable to a standalone section 1170.126 petition.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (26)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (2016)(distinguished)
- People v. Frierson, 4 Cal.5th 225 (2017)(followed)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (2010)(followed)
- People v. Cooper, 27 Cal.4th 38 (2002)(followed)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (2010)(followed)
- Robert L. v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 894 (2003)(followed)
- People v. King, 38 Cal.4th 617 (2006)(followed)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (2017)(followed)
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (2012)(followed)
- Miller v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.2d 818 (1943)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 26.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…