California Court of Appeal

In this case, defendant was convicted of possession methamphetamine for sale and of the sale and transportation of methamphetamine. The trial court found true allegations that defendant had five prior burglary convictions, and sentenced defendant under the Three Strikes law to 25-to-life. Defendant petitioned under the Three Strikes Reform Act, specifically, Penal Code section 1170.126, to have his original sentence recalled and to be resentenced as a second strike offender, but the court denied the petition after determining that defendant was not entitled to relief because he had committed violent acts while incarcerated and thus presented a danger to the public. On appeal, defendant contends that he is still entitled to automatic resentencing as a person with two strikes under the amendments to sections 667 and 1170.12. The judgment is affirmed, where: 1) defendant is not entitled to mandatory resentencing because the Three Strikes Act’s objective is for sections 667 and 1170.12 not to be applied retroactively to final judgments, as here; 2) prospective application of the ameliorative benefits of second strike sentencing under the Three Strikes Act does not violate equal protection guarantees; and 3) defendant’s sentence was not unconstitutionally unusual.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/10/2015
• Published 03/10/2015

Judges

• Rylaarsdam

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel