Flores

People v. Flores

Bad Law
174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 390·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 596·227 Cal. App. 4th 1070·2014 WL 3105008
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 2014B250829California1,988 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

There are limits to the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (The Reform Act). Relief may be denied in the discretion of the sentencing court upon a finding that a reduced sentence would “pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (Pen. Code, § 1170.126, subd. (f).)

Mark Anthony Flores asked the trial court to reduce his third strike 25-year-to-life sentence and resentence him as a second strike offender. The trial court denied relief impliedly finding that he was outside the “spirit” of The Reform Act. Appellant mounts a facial challenge to the law. He contends that the phrase “pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is unconstitutionally vague. In addition, he contends that the trial court erroneously required the People to prove his dangerousness by a preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, he contends the trial court erroneously refused to remove his shackles during his testimony at the hearing on the petition. We affirm.

Original Sentence and Appeal

Appellant was convicted by a jury of the unauthorized taking of a vehicle, a nonserious and nonviolent offense. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) He admitted…

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.