People v. High CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the court erred in finding that resentencing him posed an unreasonable risk of danger because "there is no reliable evidence" that he presents such a risk. This suggests that "substantial evidence" is the appropriate standard for our review. It is not. The abuse of discretion standard applies to our review, and we structure the discussion accordingly. We note, however, that the record contains substantial evidence to support the challenged finding. As we shall explain, we review the record to determine if the court abused its discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant "would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." (§ 1170.126, subd. (f); Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1301.) We decline respondent's request to reject the Kaulick holding. (See People v. Flores (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1076.) Appellant sought relief under "section 1170.126 which creates a post- conviction release proceeding 'intended to apply exclusively to persons presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment pursuant to [the three strikes law] whose sentence under this [reform] act would not have been an…