Estrada

People v. Estrada

Good Law
196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 418·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1153·243 Cal. App. 4th 336
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 23, 2015B260573California2,091 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rubin, J.

*338 Defendant Mario Estrada appeals from a post conviction order denying his petition for resentencing as a second-strike offender under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. (Pen.Code, § 1170.126.) 1 The trial court denied the petition on the ground that defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of his crime, an enumerated exclusion under Proposition 36, and thus he is not entitled to resentencing relief. (§§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(2), 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii).) Defendant argues that he pled guilty only to grand theft person and that all firearm related charges were dismissed; thus the court erred in reviewing the reporter's transcript of his preliminary hearing to make the finding that he was armed. We disagree and affirm.

FACTS

The critical facts occurred on three days over 20 years ago. Since defendant pled guilty, we take our facts primarily from the preliminary hearing. On April 9, 1995, defendant entered a Radio Shack store and approached the employee at the sales counter. As the employee began to ring up defendant's purchase, defendant pulled out a gun and told the employee to hand over all of the money in the…

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.