People v. Curtis CA3, C088228

Eyewitness saw two men leave a convenience store—one carrying a shotgun—and get into a tan Subaru; the car fled the scene.
A CHP pursuit followed; the Subaru drove dangerously, and at one point someone threw a shotgun from the right side of the vehicle.
When the car stopped, three men exited; Curtis (the driver) was later convicted of felon-in-possession (former §12021) and felony evasion; he received a Three Strikes life term.
Curtis filed a §1170.126 resentencing petition; a trial court denied it, and an earlier appellate panel affirmed under the preponderance standard.
After People v. Frierson changed the standard to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Curtis renewed his petition; the trial court again denied relief, finding he was armed with a firearm during the third-strike offense.
On appeal Curtis argued substantial evidence did not support a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding that he was armed (knowledge/proximity to the shotgun insufficient; driving at high speed made access infeasible).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt Curtis was "armed with a firearm" during the third-strike offenses (making him ineligible under §667(e)(2)(C)(iii)).	Shotgun was inside the Subaru while Curtis (the driver) and two passengers occupied it; proximity, jury's possession finding, and the shotgun being pointed at Curtis support that the weapon was readily accessible—thus he was armed.	Mere possession/knowledge or proximity is insufficient; high-speed driving made grabbing the shotgun infeasible during evasion; felon-in-possession conviction alone does not establish arming.	Affirmed. Court held substantial evidence supports a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding that Curtis had ready access to the shotgun while in the Subaru and therefore was armed during the offenses.
Whether the court could rely on the record of conviction and prior appellate findings (rather than a jury) to decide §1170.126 eligibility.	Court may rely on record of conviction and prior appellate opinion; Perez permits court findings on eligibility issues so long as prosecution meets reasonable-doubt standard and findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.	Curtis challenged sufficiency of evidence, not the court’s reliance on the record itself.	Held that the court permissibly relied on the record/appellate opinion; findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and here support ineligibility.

People v. Frierson, 4 Cal.5th 225 (held prosecution must prove §1170.126 ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Perez, 4 Cal.5th 1055 (trial court may make eligibility findings not found by a jury; appellate review under substantial evidence)
People v. Bland, 10 Cal.4th 991 (defendant is armed if weapon is available for offensive or defensive use)
People v. T. White, 243 Cal.App.4th 1354 (possession plus ready access can establish arming)
People v. M. White, 223 Cal.App.4th 512 (possession does not always equal being armed; ready access is the key)
People v. Blakely, 225 Cal.App.4th 1042 (felon-in-possession conviction does not automatically disqualify for resentencing absent evidence weapon was available for use)
People v. Valdez, 10 Cal.App.5th 1338 (a weapon hidden but readily accessible to defendant can constitute arming)
People v. Hicks, 231 Cal.App.4th 275 (record of conviction and appellate opinion may be used to prove ineligibility under §1170.126)