Valdez

People v. Valdez

Bad Law
201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 569·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 343·246 Cal. App. 4th 1410
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 2016G052105California8,299 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

*1413 John Jeffrey Valdez appeals from an order denying his petition for recall of his indeterminate life sentence and resentencing in accordance with the Three Strikes Reform Act, commonly referred to as Proposition 36. Although the trial court determined appellant was eligible for resentencing, it denied his petition based on a discretionary determination that "resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." (Pen.Code, § 1170.126, subd. (f) ; all further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Appellant argues the court erred because: (1) Proposition 36 establishes a presumption in favor of resentencing eligible inmates, and authorizes denial of a resentencing petition on the basis of dangerousness only in extraordinary circumstances; (2) the definition of what constitutes "an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" that was adopted by the electorate in the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act-commonly referred to as Proposition 47-must also be applied to resentencing petitions filed pursuant to Proposition 36; (3) if the Proposition 47 definition is not applied, then the "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety"…

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.