Conley

Under the “Three Strikes” law as originally enacted in 1994, an individual convicted of any felony offense following two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies was subject to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of no less than 25 years. (Pen. Code, former §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) In 2012, the electorate passed the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act or Act) (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012)), which amended the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain third strike defendants. The electorate also authorized persons “presently serving” an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed under the prior version of the law to seek resentencing under the amended penalty scheme by filing a petition for recall of sentence. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126, subd. (a).) Under the Act, a court must *652 grant a recall petition unless it determines that resentencing the petitioner “would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (1).)

The Reform Act took effect on November 7, 2012. The question in this case is whether third strike defendants who were…

Concurring.—I concur in the court’s decision that defendant, who was serving a third strike life term when the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012) (Reform Act or Act)) took effect, may seek relief under the act only through the statutory procedure for recalling the sentence (Pen. Code, § 1170.126) 1 even though his judgment of conviction was not yet final. Because I concur, I also necessarily agree that In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d 948 ] (Estrada) does not require a different result. As the author of the court’s opinion in In re Pedro T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1041 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 884 P.2d 1022 ] (Pedro T.), and the only current member of the court who participated in that case, I write separately to explain its significance.

To conclude that Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d 740 , does not govern our interpretation of the Reform Act is a relatively straightforward exercise. Estrada articulates a presumption of statutory construction: ‘“[A]n amendatory statute lessening punishment is presumed to apply in all cases not yet reduced to final judgment as of the amendatory statute’s effective date”…

Filed 6/30/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S211275 v. ) ) Ct.App. 3 C070272

PATRICK LEE CONLEY, )

) Yolo County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. CRF113234 ____________________________________)

Under the ―Three Strikes‖ law as originally enacted in 1994, an individual convicted of any felony offense following two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies was subject to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of no less than 25 years. (Pen. Code, former §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).) In 2012, the electorate passed the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act or Act) (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012)), which amended the law to reduce the punishment prescribed for certain third strike defendants. The electorate also authorized persons ―presently serving‖ an indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed under the prior version of the law to seek resentencing under the amended penalty…