Court gives judges more leeway in resentencing

As California looks to reduced criminal charges and sentences, two recent state Supreme Court decisions have clarified that inmates convicted of “three strikes” will not receive the same leniency.

On the heels of a decision giving judges greater discretion to refuse to reduce sentences for such convicts, the high court on Monday unanimously gave judges greater leeway to refuse resentencing based on facts underlying dismissed charges. People v. Estrada, 2017 DJDAR 7095.

If a firearms allegation is dismissed as part of a plea bargain, for example, a judge may still consider that defendant’s possession of a firearm when reviewing a petition for resentencing under Proposition 36. Proposition 36 allows inmates whose third-strike offense was non-serious and nonviolent to petition for a reduced sentence.

Earlier this month a divided court ruled Proposition 47, which made some inmates eligible for resentencing by changing some felonies to misdemeanors, would not affect judges’ discretion to deny resentencing to third-strike defendants under Proposition 36. People v. Valencia, 2017 DJDAR 6549.

A staunch supporter of Proposition 36 and one of its primary authors, former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said he was pleased with the court’s decisions in Estrada and Valencia.

Estrada “was a unanimous decision, which is pretty hard to come by, but I think it was a pretty straightforward exercise in statutory language interpretation,” Cooley said. “A thoughtful, knowledgeable judge should be able to evaluate the true facts that relate to a criminal act.”

Michael Romano, director of the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law School, said the court’s decision is a misreading of the voters’ wishes.

If a prosecutor drops a gun allegation, Romano said, “Maybe they thought they couldn’t prove it. We don’t know. The bigger point is, given how old that plea bargain was, that should be extra reason to afford people the opportunity to go before a judge and prove they’re not a danger. This strips judges of the opportunity to make that decision.”

In Monday’s case, a Radio Shack employee had testified in a preliminary hearing that defendant Mario Estrada entered the store, pulled out a handgun, demanded the money in the register and then ordered the employee to the store’s back room.

Estrada pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft — a third strike — but under a plea agreement, the prosecution dismissed a firearm allegation. He was sentenced to 25 years to life.

After voters passed Proposition 36, Estrada petitioned for resentencing but the trial court found him ineligible because he possessed a firearm during the theft.

Estrada appealed, contending the trial court could not deny the resentencing petition based on dismissed charges.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote, “Estrada posits that basing ineligibility on facts underlying those dismissed counts essentially rewrites the plea agreement by resurrect[ing] facts underlying charges and allegations that Estrada bargained away. We are not persuaded.”