People v. Drew, D071334

In 1999 (SCE194453) Drew was convicted of grand theft and receiving stolen property, found to have two strike priors and four prison priors, and sentenced to 29 years to life under the pre-TSRA Three Strikes law.
In a separate 2001 case (SCE199615) Drew received an additional life sentence (70 years to life) for robberies, assaults, and weapons offenses; that sentence runs consecutively.
The Three Strikes Reform Act (TSRA) (Prop 36) took effect November 7, 2012 and allowed certain inmates serving indeterminate life terms under the old law to petition for resentencing under Penal Code §1170.126 within two years or later upon showing "good cause."
Drew filed a §1170.126 petition in September 2016, nearly two years after the November 7, 2014 deadline; the trial court issued an OSC and denied the petition as untimely, finding Drew failed to show good cause.
Drew argued he was unaware he was eligible (due to other life sentences and unclear caselaw) and lacked counsel until the Public Defender later discovered his case; the People argued the delay was inexcusable.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Drew failed to show good cause for the late filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Drew showed "good cause" to file his §1170.126 petition after the two-year deadline	The People argued Drew's petition was untimely and he offered no adequate justification for a nearly two-year post-deadline delay	Drew argued he was unaware of eligibility (confusion from other life sentences and legal uncertainty) and lacked counsel until the Public Defender alerted him, so delay should be excused	Court held no abuse of discretion: delay was lengthy, legal uncertainty did not justify waiting, and lack of counsel/awareness alone did not establish good cause

People v. Johnson, 61 Cal.4th 674 (clarified TSRA eligibility and allowed resentencing for nonserious/nonviolent counts despite presence of serious/violent counts)
People v. Sutton, 48 Cal.4th 533 (identifies factors for "good cause": nature/strength of justification, duration of delay, prejudice)
Stroud v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.4th 952 (courts must consider totality of circumstances when assessing good cause)
People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (trial court has broad discretion in assessing good cause)
In re Machado, 226 Cal.App.4th 1044 (held nonserious/nonviolent offenses may be eligible for resentencing; supported Drew's arguable eligibility prior to Johnson)
In re Douglas, 200 Cal.App.4th 236 (subjective unawareness or mistaken belief insufficient to excuse lengthy habeas delay)
People v. Hill, 37 Cal.3d 491 (discusses prejudice from delay in criminal proceedings)
Bettencourt v. Los Rios Community College Dist., 42 Cal.3d 270 (discretion must conform with spirit of law)
City of Sacramento v. Drew, 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 ("scope of discretion" resides in the law applied)