People v. Flores
227 Cal. App. 4th 1070
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Flores was convicted by jury of unauthorized taking of a vehicle and admitted two prior serious/violent felonies and a prior prison term, resulting in a 25-years-to-life sentence plus one year.
- He sought relief under Proposition 36’s Three Strikes Reform Act to be resentenced as a second-strike offender because the third felony was not serious or violent.
- The trial court implicitly found Flores outside the Act’s “spirit” and denied relief.
- The Act allows resentencing only if the third felony is not serious/violent and requires a determination of whether the new sentence would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety (unreasonable risk standard).
- Flores argued the phrase “pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is unconstitutionally vague and that dangerousness must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a preponderance.
- The court affirmed, holding the vagueness challenge lacks merit, the standard of proof is preponderance, and shackling issues were without reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of the unreasonable risk standard | Flores argues the phrase is impermissibly vague. | People contends the phrase is clear and workable. | Not impermissibly vague; term clear and workable. |
| Standard of proof for dangerousness | Dangerousness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | Preponderance of the evidence suffices. | Preponderance standard applies. |
| Shackling during testimony | Shackling prejudiced testimony and impaired defense. | Shackling did not prejudice the defendant. | No reversible error; record insufficient to show prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kaulick, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (2013) (dangerousness standard not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Kash Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 19 Cal.3d 294 (1977) (unreasonable/interfere with rights; phraseology clear; supports reasonableness standard)
- People v. Morgan, 42 Cal.4th 593 (2007) (reasonableness of standards; use of common experience)
- People v. Espinoza, 226 Cal.App.4th 635 (2014) (grant of relief where lesser sentence not pose unreasonable risk)
- People v. Mirmirani, 30 Cal.3d 375 (1981) ( vagueness doctrine and notice considerations)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (Romero spirit; discretion in handling prior strikes)