People v. Brown
230 Cal. App. 4th 1502
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Brown, a Three Strikes inmate, was convicted in 1998 for petty theft with priors and sentenced to 27 years to life; his prior strikes included a 1978 robbery, a 1991 robbery, and a 1991 oral copulation by force.
- In 2012, Prop. 36 added § 1170.126, allowing eligible inmates to petition for recall and resentencing as a second striker; eligibility requires meeting three criteria under § 1170.126(e) and involves discretionary risk analysis under § 1170.126(f)-(g).
- Brown filed a petition on March 20, 2013 seeking resentencing under § 1170.126; the trial court found him ineligible and stated there was nothing it could do, though defense argued the court had inherent power to strike priors under Romero and 1385.
- The People opposed the petition as non-appealable and argued the Reform Act unambiguously sets eligibility criteria with no discretion to alter them; the court stated it would review the appeal despite potential non-appealability.
- Brown appeals on two main theories: (1) the court has authority to strike a disqualifying prior under § 1385 and Romero at a § 1170.126 recall hearing; (2) the court may disregard eligibility criteria under § 1170.126(e). The court ultimately affirms the denial, holding no such discretion exists and the Romero power does not apply to § 1170.126 eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Romero/§1385 authority extends to §1170.126 eligibility | Brown argues court may strike priors to make him eligible. | People contend §1385 power does not apply to §1170.126 eligibility. | No; eligibility criteria are mandatory and §1385 cannot be used to alter them. |
| Whether §1170.126(e) criteria are binding and non-discretionary | Court has discretion to bypass criteria in the interest of justice. | Statute requires satisfaction of three criteria before recall; no discretion to override. | Yes; the three criteria are mandatory and the court lacks discretion to except them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (limitation of 1385 discretion in Three Strikes recall context)
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2013) (restricts discretionary recall under §1170.126)
- People v. Nuckles, 56 Cal.4th 601 (Cal. 2013) (lenity and statutory interpretation guidance )
- People v. Rizo, 22 Cal.4th 681 (Cal. 2000) (interpretation of voter initiatives and statutory interpretation)