Rodriguez

People v. Rodriguez

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 5, 2015F067805California14,594 words

Opinion

Opinion

Introduction, part III of the Discussion, and the Disposition are certified for publication.

SEE DISSENTING OPINION

INTRODUCTION

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (hereafter Proposition 36 or the Act) created a postconviction release proceeding for third strike offenders serving indeterminate life sentences for crimes that are not serious or violent felonies. If such an inmate meets the criteria enumerated in Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (e), he or she will be resentenced as a second strike offender unless the court determines such resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.1 (§ 1170.126, subd. (f); People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 168.) After the Act went into effect, Timothy James Rodriguez (defendant), an inmate serving a term of 25 years to life in prison following conviction of a felony that was not violent (as defined by § 667.5, subd. (c)) or serious (as defined by § 1192.7, subd. (c)), filed a petition for resentencing under the Act. The trial court found defendant was “not disqualified from resentencing,” but declined to resentence him due to the risk of danger to public safety. In the published portion of this…

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.