People v. Blakely
225 Cal. App. 4th 1042
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Lewis Blakely, serving 25-years-to-life after a 2005 conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (stipulated possession; strike priors admitted), petitioned under Penal Code §1170.126 after Prop 36 (2012) to recall sentence and be resentenced as a second-strike offender.
- Prop 36 narrowed Three Strikes life sentences to current offenses that are serious/violent or where specified disqualifying factors (e.g., "used a firearm," "was armed with a firearm") apply; it also created a record-based eligibility process for recall of sentence.
- Trial court initially found Blakely "technically eligible," but after reconsideration (relying on case facts beyond the possession stipulation) concluded he was armed and had used a firearm and denied relief.
- The People argued (1) a §12021 conviction can disqualify, (2) the court may review the record of conviction, and (3) Apprendi-type jury proof is inapplicable to resentencing eligibility. Blakely argued mere possession does not equal being "armed," and disqualifying conduct must be pled/proved.
- The Court of Appeal (published parts) held: (a) a felon-in-possession conviction alone does not automatically disqualify — disqualification requires the firearm be available for offensive or defensive use; (b) disqualifying factors for Prop 36 eligibility need not be pled and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in the resentencing-eligibility proceeding; (c) a court may examine relevant, reliable, admissible portions of the record of conviction to determine disqualification; but (d) remanded because the trial court’s factual basis for denial could not be shown to rest on admissible/reliable portions of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the trial court’s denial appealable? | Denial is appealable under §1237 as an order after judgment affecting substantial rights. | Agrees denial is appealable. | Yes; denial is an appealable post-judgment order affecting substantial rights. |
| Does a §12021 (felon-in-possession) conviction automatically disqualify from Prop 36 relief? | Section language and ballot materials imply gun-related convictions may disqualify. | Mere possession (dominion/control) is not the same as being "armed" (available for use); conviction alone insufficient. | No; conviction alone is insufficient — disqualification requires the firearm have been available for offensive or defensive use (i.e., "armed"). |
| Must disqualifying conduct be pled and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt at the eligibility proceeding? | People: Apprendi and jury-proof rules do not apply to resentencing-eligibility proceedings; the proceeding is an act of lenity. | Blakely: constitutional right to jury determination of the nature of the current offense and facts affecting punishment. | Disqualifying factors need not be pled and proved to a jury in the §1170.126 eligibility proceeding; court may determine eligibility (factual findings do not increase an existing sentence). |
| May the trial court rely on the record of conviction to find disqualification, and did this court properly do so here? | Court may examine relevant, reliable, admissible portions of the record (prelim transcript, trial/appellate record). | Court should not rely on inadmissible materials (police reports, probation report statements) beyond plea stipulation. | A court may consider relevant, reliable, admissible portions of the record of conviction, but remand is required because the trial court’s finding here cannot be shown to have rested on admissible/reliable record materials. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal. App. 4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App.) (background on Prop 36 and its reforms)
- People v. Kaulick, 215 Cal. App. 4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App.) (eligibility/resentencing proceedings are acts of lenity; Apprendi not implicated)
- People v. Bland, 10 Cal. 4th 991 (Cal. 1995) ("armed with a firearm" construed as availability for offensive/defensive use)
- People v. Reed, 13 Cal. 4th 217 (Cal. 1996) (scope of the "record of conviction")
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal. 4th 448 (Cal. 1998) (admissibility limits on materials from the record of conviction)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S. 2010) (downward resentencing proceedings are limited adjustments and do not implicate Sixth Amendment jury findings)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (principle that facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury — discussed and distinguished)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (defining "statutory maximum" for Apprendi purposes — discussed and distinguished)