People v. Carter CA2/7
B267570
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- In 1996 Calvin Carter was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced under Three Strikes to 25 years to life after the court found four qualifying prior strikes.
- During a sheriff chase Carter was seen place a loaded gun on a rooftop; the gun was recovered after his arrest.
- Proposition 36 (2012) added Penal Code § 1170.126 allowing certain third‑strike inmates to petition for recall/resentencing unless excluded by enumerated factors (including being "armed with a firearm" during the current offense).
- Carter petitioned for recall in 2013; the trial court issued an OSC but denied the petition in October 2015, finding him statutorily ineligible because he was armed during the offense.
- Carter appealed, arguing possession of the firearm cannot satisfy the exclusion because the arming element requires a separate facilitative nexus to an underlying felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a felon-in-possession conviction disqualifies a petitioner from Prop. 36 resentencing when the record shows actual possession/arming | The People: actual physical possession means the defendant was "armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense," so petitioner is ineligible | Carter: possession is the substantive offense; arming requires a separate facilitative nexus to another underlying felony and cannot be satisfied by possession of the same firearm | Court affirmed: possession/actual physical control meets the temporal "during the commission" test and renders petitioner ineligible |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App.) (holding actual possession = being "armed during the commission" for Prop. 36 ineligibility; temporal nexus sufficient)
- People v. Brimmer, 230 Cal.App.4th 782 (Cal. Ct. App.) (agreeing possession that amounts to arming disqualifies petitioner under Proposition 36)
- People v. White, 223 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court concluded physical possession supports finding defendant was armed for exclusion)
- People v. Berry, 235 Cal.App.4th 1417 (Cal. Ct. App.) (same principle: possession can render an inmate ineligible for resentencing under Prop. 36)
Disposition: Affirmed — trial court correctly found Carter statutorily ineligible for recall/resentencing because he was armed during the offense.