People v. Martin CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Martin claims the trial court incorrectly found he was armed with a deadly weapon

when he violated section 4502, subdivision (a). Specifically, Martin asserts: "The

prosecution in the current offense did not charge appellant with being armed with a

deadly weapon, that fact was not proved to the jury in his trial, and that fact was not at

issue or discussed in [Martin I]. The trial court's finding that the record of conviction

established that appellant was armed with a deadly weapon during the current offense

was unsupported."

The People respond that a dirk is a deadly weapon as a matter of law and the jury

found Martin was in possession of a dirk. Further, the trial court was permitted under

People v. White (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 512 (White) to consider the record of conviction

to determine Martin's eligibility for relief under the Act.

The Act changed the requirements for sentencing third strike offenders. (People v.

Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 167.) Prior to the Act, an individual with two or

more strike priors who was convicted of any new felony could be sentenced to an

indeterminate life term. (Ibid.) Under the Act, a life sentence…