People v. Mueck CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 25, 2013C071720California642 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

While defendant's appeal was pending, the voters passed Proposition 36, limiting three strike sentences to current convictions for serious or violent felonies, or a limited number of other felonies that are not relevant here. (See Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subd. (c), 667, subd. (c).)1 If defendant had been sentenced today, he would not be subject to an indeterminate life term. Proposition 36 also added section 1170.126, which creates a postconviction release proceeding “intended to apply exclusively to persons presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12, whose sentence under this act would not have been an indeterminate life sentence.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (a).) A prisoner is eligible for resentencing under section 1170.126 as a second strike offender if certain requirements are met. (§ 1170.126, subd. (e).) In asking us to vacate his sentence and remand the matter, defendant relies on In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada). Under Estrada, a statute lessening punishment is presumed to apply to all cases not yet reduced to final judgment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.