49 Cal.App.5th 1003
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 1984 Lionel Scott pleaded guilty in Minnesota to third-degree assault after admitting he intentionally pressed a warm/hot steam iron to his sister’s face, causing a discernible burn treated at a hospital.
- In 1999 Scott was convicted in California of multiple sex offenses; the sentencing court found two prior out-of-state felonies (Missouri burglary and the Minnesota assault) were "strikes" under California Three Strikes law, relying on Minnesota plea transcript and records.
- The California court concluded Scott had "personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon" (the iron) such that the Minnesota conviction qualified as a serious felony under Pen. Code §1192.7(c)(23).
- Scott challenged that use of the Minnesota conviction as a strike under People v. Gallardo (2017) (which limits sentencing-court factfinding about prior convictions), and sought habeas relief; the CA Supreme Court issued an order to show cause about Gallardo's retroactivity.
- The Court of Appeal (Division One) followed In re Milton and concluded Gallardo announces a new procedural rule that should not be applied retroactively; alternatively, it held Scott would not get relief because the sentencing court relied only on undisputed admissions in Scott’s plea colloquy—permitted by Gallardo.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gallardo applies retroactively on habeas to final convictions | Scott: Gallardo should apply retroactively to his final sentence | State: Gallardo is a new procedural rule and not retroactive under federal or state tests | Court: Agrees with Milton; Gallardo is a new procedural rule and does not apply retroactively |
| Whether sentencing court violated Gallardo by relying on Scott's Minnesota plea transcript to find a weapon use strike | Scott: Relying on plea/record to find conduct increased penalty violates Sixth Amendment per Gallardo | State: Gallardo permits reliance on facts the defendant admitted as factual basis for plea | Court: Even if Gallardo were retroactive, Scott admitted the dispositive facts in his plea, so reliance on those undisputed admissions was proper; petition denied |
| Whether Gallardo adopted a strict categorical/modified-categorical approach (Descamps/Mathis) that would bar considering plea admissions | Scott: Gallardo should be read to require a categorical comparison, barring factual inquiry | State: Gallardo did not adopt Descamps/Mathis categorical approach and expressly allows sentencing courts to consider defendant's admitted facts | Court: Declines to read Gallardo as adopting a categorical rule; it permits consideration of admissions in plea colloquies |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (clarified limits on sentencing-court factfinding about prior convictions; permits reliance on facts admitted in plea)
- People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (prior CA precedent permitting limited inquiry into record of prior convictions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (established jury right for facts that increase statutory maximum; carved out prior-conviction exception)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (applied categorical/modified-categorical approach to federal ACCA enhancements)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (further delineated categorical approach for prior-conviction enhancements)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (federal retroactivity framework for new rules of criminal procedure)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (explained narrow, rarely satisfied "watershed" exception to nonretroactivity)
- In re Milton, 42 Cal.App.5th 977 (held Gallardo not retroactive under state and federal standards; followed by this court)
- In re Brown, 45 Cal.App.5th 699 (contrasting appellate decision finding Gallardo retroactive under state standard)