People v. Washington CA2/4

DISCUSSION

As relevant here, an inmate is not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.126 if his or her current sentence was “imposed for any of the offenses appearing in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(2).) The referenced statutes prohibit treating a third striker as a second striker for purposes of sentencing if “[d]uring the commission of the current offense, the defendant used a firearm, was armed with a firearm or deadly weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person.” (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii).) A voter initiative is reviewed under the established rules of statutory construction. (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685.) We look at the statutory language in the overall context of the statutory scheme. (Ibid.) If the language is ambiguous, ‘“we refer to other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Appellant reads…