People v. Bradford, 227 Cal. App. 4th 1322

Bradford was convicted in 1999 of three counts of second-degree burglary and four counts of petty theft with a prior; robbery acquittal.
Trial court found five prior felonies, including two residential burglaries that were strikes under the three strikes law; sentenced to four consecutive terms of 25 years to life plus enhancements.
Bradford sought recall and resentencing after Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012) § 1170.126; petition denied as ineligible due to claimed armed-with-deadly-weapon status during current offenses.
Trial court relied on the appellate opinion and concluded Bradford possessed wire cutters during the offense, deeming them a deadly weapon; decision by ex parte minute order.
This appeal focuses on whether the eligibility determination for resentencing may rely on evidence from the record of conviction alone and whether due process requires a hearing when relying on unadjudicated facts.
Court reverses the ineligibility ruling, remanding for a determination on resentencing under the remaining provisions of § 1170.126.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May eligibility be decided on the record of conviction alone?	Bradford: facts used to deny eligibility were not pleaded/proven.	People: plead-and-prove requirement applies only to current-issue cases; record suffices.	Eligibility determined from the record is required; no jury trial right; proper remand for briefing.
Is there a plead-and-prove requirement at eligibility stage under Prop. 36?	Bradford asserts plead-and-prove applies to ineligibility factors.	People: no plead-and-prove requirement in eligibility stage.	No strict plead-and-prove requirement at eligibility; court may rely on record of conviction.
Does Apprendi apply to the postconviction eligibility determination?	Argues due process requires jury trial and beyond-reasonable-doubt proof for eligibility facts.	Apprendi does not govern this threshold eligibility proceeding under Dillon v. United States.	No Apprendi violation; proceeding is limited within the record and discretionary resentencing stage follows.
Was the wire cutters' status as a deadly weapon supported by sufficient evidence?	Wire cutters could be used as a weapon; nature and use not clearly established.	Wire cutters deemed deadly weapon based on record; evidence sufficient.	Insufficient evidence to show wire cutters were a deadly weapon; reversal on that ground.

Guerrero v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 343 (Cal. 1988) (prior-conviction enhancement proof limited to record of conviction; efficiency and double jeopardy concerns)
Woodell v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 448 (Cal. 1998) (prior foreign conviction can be reviewed via record to determine if qualifies as a strike)
Myers v. City of Richmond, 5 Cal.4th 1193 (Cal. 1993) (record of conviction used to determine elements for a strike)
Tilbury v. People, 54 Cal.3d 56 (Cal. 1991) (absence of plead-and-prove requirement at certain postconviction contexts)
Kaulick v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. App. 2013) (preponderance-of-evidence standard governs discretionary danger determination under Prop. 36)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (postconviction sentencing reduction is lenity; no Sixth Amendment issue when considering within-range discretion)