Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Three-Strikes Resentencing Must Comply With Initiative
Opinion Says Recalling Sentence Under Procedures Created by Other Statute Violates Constitution
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A statute enacted by the Legislature in 2019—which retroactively eliminates most prior-prison enhancements and provides for the reevaluation of a defendant’s sentence under any other changes in sentencing laws—may not be used to apply the penalty revisions of the voter-approved Three Strikes Reform Act, as doing so would unconstitutionally amend the provisions of the initiative, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held yesterday.
The constitutional challenge arose in a case in which a defendant challenged both his indeterminate sentence and a two-year consecutive term imposed due to prior prison allegations under the procedures set forth by the Legislature for resentencing due to the elimination of the enhancement.
He had previously petitioned for a reduction in his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act, a request that was denied due to public-safety concerns.
Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian wrote the opinion directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate to Santa Clara Superior Court to vacate the resentencing order by Judge William J. Manahan and said:
“[A]pplying the revised penalty provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act to potentially reduce a defendant’s indeterminate life term to a determinate term when the defendant is being resentenced…due to an invalid prior prison term enhancement unconstitutionally amends the resentencing procedure and requirements set forth in…the voter-approved Three Strikes Reform Act.”
Justice Daniel H. Bromberg joined in the opinion. Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood wrote a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, to express a belief that the two resentencing schemes could be harmonized.
Three Strikes Reform
In 2012, the voters enacted Proposition 36—titled the “Three Strikes Reform Act” and codified at Penal Code §1170.12. Under the act’s revised penalty provisions, an indeterminate life sentence will no longer be imposed for a defendant whose third strike is neither serious nor violent. Under those circumstances, the third-strike defendant will be treated the same as a second-strike offender and be subjected to a doubling of his sentence.
The act created a procedure, set forth in Penal Code §1170.126, governing inmates sentenced under the former law, allowing them to petition for resentencing in accordance with the new penalty provisions. Sec. 1170.126 provides that such petitions must be filed “within two years after the effective date of the act” or at a later date upon a showing of “good cause.”
The section also provides that an inmate will be denied recall of his sentence if the court determines, in its discretion, that “resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” Caselaw has established that a preponderance of the evidence standard applies in the determination of whether a defendant poses such an unreasonable risk.
Prior-Prison Enhancements
In 2019, the Legislature enacted Penal Code §1172.75, effective Jan. 1, 2020, to eliminate prior-prison enhancements under §667.5(b) except where the imprisonment was for a sexually violent offense.
The statute applies retroactively and provides that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense…is legally invalid.”
Subsection (d) provides that “[r]esentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.”
Resentencing Proceedings
Sylvester Williams was convicted after a court trial in 1999 of indecent exposure with a prior conviction in violation of Penal Code §314. The court found true allegations that Williams had suffered five prior strike convictions and had served two prior prison terms.
He was sentenced to 25 years to life consecutive to a two-year term for prior-prison enhancements.
In 2012, Williams filed a petition for recall of sentence under §1170.126 of the Three Strikes Reform Act. The court denied the petition after finding that Williams posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and affirmed the original sentencing order.
In May 2023, he filed a petition seeking to recall his sentence under §1172.75, contending that his two prior prison term enhancements were no longer valid and should be struck. He additionally argued that he was entitled to a full resentencing hearing and as he was no longer properly sentenced to a three-strikes indeterminate sentence because his most recent conviction was not a serious or violent offense.
Manahan agreed, recalled his sentence, and sentenced him to six years in prison.
Initiative Amendment
Bamattre-Manoukian noted that “[t]he power of the voters to decide whether the Legislature may amend an initiative statute” includes the authority to set forth the circumstances under which such changes may be made and that the Three Strikes Reform Act requires any statute amending its provisions be passed in each house of the Legislature by a two-thirds majority.
She pointed out that that former §1171.1, which was renumbered as §1172.75, was “not passed by the requisite margin.”
In analyzing whether a provision amends a proposition, the jurist noted that a court must simply ask whether it prohibits what the proposition allows or authorizes what the initiative prohibits.
The jurist opined that allowing resentencing based on the Three Strikes Reform Act pursuant to a petition under §1172.75 would transform the legislation into an unconstitutional amendment to the proposition by gutting “the lower standard of proof required for a court to determine whether a defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety…and…the requirement that a petition for recall of sentence be filed by 2014.”
She concluded that Williams “may not now, through a resentencing procedure for invalid prior prison term enhancements (§ 1172.75), seek to apply the revised penalty provisions of section 1170.12 of the Three Strikes Reform Act and thereby avoid the resentencing procedure and requirements found in section 1170.126 of the Three Strikes Reform Act.”
Greenwood’s View
Greenwood agrees “that the application of Penal Code section 1172.75 urged by Williams would constitute an impermissible amendment to the Three Strikes Reform Act,” but “dissent[s] in part because a reasonable construction of section 1172.75 and section 1170.126 harmonizes both statutes while preserving the voters’ intent to protect public safety by giving judges the discretion to determine the risk of danger posed by resentencing.”
She reasoned:
“Nothing in the plain language of [1172.75](d)(2) mandates automatic resentencing…under section 1170.12 as amended by the Three Strikes Reform Act. Instead, subdivision (d)(2) fully incorporates section 1170.126, including its discretionary standard for determining risk of danger to public safety, because section 1170.126 ‘provide[s] for judicial discretion’ in resentencing.
The jurist continued:
“Resentencing under section 1170.12 is not required if the court determines, in its discretion, that doing so would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety under section 1170.126. Furthermore, recall and resentencing under section 1172.75 may constitute ‘good cause’ for the petitioner to file a renewed petition for resentencing under section 1170.126 past the two-year filing deadline….”
The case is People v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Williams), 2024 S.O.S. 2020.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company