People v. Arevalo, 244 Cal. App. 4th 836

In 1995 Arevalo was convicted (bench trial) of grand theft auto and driving without consent; acquitted of felon-in-possession and the court found the "armed with a firearm" enhancement not true. He received a 25‑to‑life Three Strikes sentence.
After Proposition 36 (2012), Arevalo petitioned under Penal Code §1170.126 for recall and resentencing, arguing his current offenses were not serious/violent and he was not armed during the offense.
The resentencing court, reviewing the trial record under a preponderance standard, found Arevalo had been armed and ruled him ineligible for resentencing despite the original acquittal and not‑true enhancement finding.
Arevalo appealed, arguing the resentencing court relied on facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt at his trial.
The Court of Appeal held that the eligibility determination under §1170.126 must respect the parity between prospective sentencing and retrospective resentencing established in People v. Johnson, and that findings negating an enhancement/acquittals at trial preclude later disqualifying findings unless the higher criminal standard is met.
The court reversed: Arevalo is legally eligible for resentencing because his acquittal and the not‑true enhancement finding preclude a contrary disqualification under the proper standard; remanded for a dangerousness hearing under preponderance standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of proof to determine resentencing eligibility under §1170.126	AG: preponderance of the evidence suffices for eligibility facts	Arevalo: due process requires beyond a reasonable doubt for eligibility facts established (or rejected) at trial	Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to eligibility findings that would contradict trial verdicts/enhancement findings
Effect of prior acquittal / not‑true enhancement on resentencing disqualification	AG: resentencing court may revisit facts using preponderance; acquittal is not a finding of fact	Arevalo: acquittal and not‑true enhancement are preclusive of disqualifying "arming" finding	Acquittal and not‑true enhancement preclude a contrary eligibility disqualification under the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard
Proper use of the trial record for retrospective factual determinations	AG: Guerrero record review and preponderance permit reliance on trial testimony to determine conduct	Arevalo: Guerrero review is appropriate but cannot override an acquittal without satisfying higher proof	Court: Guerrero record review applies, but conclusions that conflict with trial verdicts require the higher criminal standard
Burden for subsequent dangerousness determination before resentencing	AG: People may prove dangerousness by preponderance	Arevalo: does not contest preponderance for dangerousness	Court: Dangerousness hearing remains preponderance of the evidence; remand for that hearing

People v. Johnson, 61 Cal.4th 674 (Cal. 2015) (interpreting parallel structure of sentencing and resentencing under Prop 36)
People v. Guerrero, 44 Cal.3d 343 (Cal. 1988) (trier may consult entire record of conviction to determine facts underlying prior convictions)
People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (held preponderance standard for resentencing eligibility determinations)
People v. Bradford, 227 Cal.App.4th 1322 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (discussed due process and advocated consideration of heightened proof for retrospective determinations)
People v. Blakely, 225 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (interpreting scope of disqualifying conduct under Prop 36)
People v. Kaulick, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (addressed standards for dangerousness determination under §1170.126)
In re Coley, 55 Cal.4th 524 (Cal. 2012) (noting an acquittal means the fact was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process analysis of appropriate burden of proof standard)