People v. Drew
D071334M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2017Background
- In 1999 Drew was convicted in SCE194453 of grand theft and receiving stolen property and sentenced to 29 years-to-life under the pre-TSRA Three Strikes regime.
- In a separate 2001 case (SCE199615) Drew received consecutive life sentences for violent offenses, yielding additional life terms unrelated to the 1999 conviction.
- Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act, TSRA) took effect Nov. 7, 2012 and §1170.126 allowed resentencing petitions for certain nonserious/nonviolent convictions, with a two-year filing window (unless good cause shown).
- Drew filed a recall petition in Sept. 2016 (almost two years after the statutory window closed) asserting he was unaware he was eligible because of his other life sentences and lack of counsel or notification.
- The trial court denied the petition as untimely, finding Drew failed to show good cause for the delay; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Drew showed "good cause" to excuse filing after §1170.126's two-year deadline | People: No — delay was lengthy and unexplained; prosecution not prejudiced but inmate bears responsibility to file timely | Drew: Unaware of eligibility due to other life sentences and lack of counsel/notice; timely after public defender notified him | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; long delay and minimal efforts to seek relief do not constitute good cause |
| Whether pre-deadline legal uncertainty justified late filing | People: Machado and related decisions existed before deadline, so law was at best unsettled and petitioner could have filed | Drew: Argued uncertainty and lack of counsel excused delay | Held: Uncertainty was insufficient; Machado provided a reasonable, meritorious basis to file before deadline |
| Whether subjective unawareness of eligibility provides objective good cause | People: Mistaken belief/unawareness is insufficient for long delay | Drew: Claimed subjective unawareness until public defender raised issue | Held: Subjective unawareness alone does not establish objective good cause; court may require some effort to pursue relief |
| Whether §1382 good-cause analogies inform §1170.126 | People: Analogous factors (justification, duration, prejudice) guide analysis though prejudice less relevant in §1170.126 context | Drew: Did not extensively contest use of analogy; focused on counsel/notice excuse | Held: Court adopts similar multi-factor approach (nature/strength of excuse, delay length, prejudice) but emphasizes limited role of prejudice here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 61 Cal.4th 674 (clarified that a nonserious/nonviolent count remains eligible for resentencing despite a co-count that is serious or violent)
- In re Machado, 226 Cal.App.4th 1044 (held nonserious/nonviolent offenses may be eligible for TSRA resentencing; provided support for filing before deadline)
- People v. Sutton, 48 Cal.4th 533 (discussed good-cause factors: justification, duration, prejudice)
- In re Douglas, 200 Cal.App.4th 236 (subjective mistake/unawareness insufficient to excuse substantial delay)
- People v. Jenkins, 22 Cal.4th 900 (recognizes trial court's broad discretion in good-cause determinations)