515 P.3d 34
Cal.2022Background:
- In 1987 William Milton was convicted in Illinois of one armed robbery (jury) and one simple robbery (plea); Illinois law does not require California's specific intent element for robbery.
- In 1999 Milton was convicted in California of second-degree robbery; the trial court (relying on Illinois records and sentencing remarks) found Milton had used a gun in both Illinois robberies and imposed a Three Strikes 25-to-life sentence plus enhancements.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the Three Strikes sentence; Milton later sought habeas relief after this court decided People v. Gallardo (2017), which limited judicial factfinding about prior convictions.
- Courts of Appeal were split on whether Gallardo applies retroactively to final judgments; the Court granted review to resolve the conflict.
- The California Supreme Court held Gallardo announced a new procedural rule (overruling McGee/Guerrero to the extent they authorized broader judicial factfinding) and concluded that rule does not apply retroactively to convictions final on collateral review; it affirmed denial of Milton’s habeas petition.
Issues:
| Issue | Milton's Argument | People’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gallardo applies retroactively to final judgments | Gallardo protects Sixth Amendment jury rights; it should be applied retroactively to vacate Milton’s enhanced sentence | Gallardo announced a new procedural rule; under federal (Teague) and California (Johnson) retroactivity tests it is not retroactive to final convictions | Held: Gallardo is a new procedural rule and is not retroactive to final judgments; habeas denied |
| Whether Gallardo is substantive or procedural | Gallardo substantively narrowed who counts as "convicted of a serious felony" under Three Strikes, so it must be retroactive | Gallardo regulates the procedure/evidence courts may consider (not the substantive reach of the statutes) and is therefore procedural | Held: Gallardo is procedural (it limits permissible fact‑finding methods) and not substantive; therefore nonretroactive |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (Cal. 2017) (holding courts may consider only facts necessarily established by the prior conviction when assessing strike eligibility)
- People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (Cal. 2006) (prior precedent permitting broader judicial review of the record of conviction; disapproved in part by Gallardo)
- People v. Guerrero, 44 Cal.3d 343 (Cal. 1988) (longstanding rule allowing courts to review the entire record of conviction; modified by Gallardo)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury, except the fact of a prior conviction)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (U.S. 2013) (limits sentencing courts to categorical approach and modified categorical approach in determining predicate offenses)
- Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2016) (reaffirming elements-only inquiry and Sixth Amendment concerns about judicial factfinding for enhancements)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (federal rule for retroactivity on collateral review: new procedural rules generally not retroactive)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (U.S. 2016) (distinguishing substantive rules that alter the class of persons punished from procedural rules)
- People v. Johnson, 3 Cal.3d 404 (Cal. 1970) (California’s state retroactivity test considering purpose, reliance, and administration-of-justice impacts)