People v. Smith CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 2014C072008California566 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

Defendant concedes that the trial court’s denial of his Romero motion was not an abuse of discretion “under all the circumstances here.” He nonetheless asks us to reverse and remand to allow the trial court to reconsider the motion in light of an “unusual circumstance,” the changes to the Three Strikes law in Proposition 36. On November 6, 2012, the voters approved Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, which changed the requirements for sentencing for a third strike. Under prior law, a person with two or more prior strikes is subject to a 25-year-to-life sentence for any subsequent felony conviction. (See former §§ 667, 1170.12.)

3 Proposition 36 amended the Three Strikes law to limit the 25-year-to-life sentence to persons with two prior strikes whose current conviction is for a serious or violent felony. (§§ 667, 1170.12.) Those with two prior strikes who are convicted of any other felony are now sentenced as a two strike offender. (§§ 667, 1170.12.) Proposition 36 also allows persons currently serving three strikes sentences for a crime that is not a serious or violent felony to be resentenced as a second strike offender unless the trial court…

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.