People v. Frierson
1 Cal. App. 5th 788
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant James Frierson was serving 25-years-to-life under the Three Strikes law after a stalking conviction (§ 646.9) and two prior strikes.
- Stalking conviction rested on threatening letters he sent from prison to his wife, containing statements that he would "get her," "hurt her," and do something "real bad."
- Under Proposition 36 (Pen. Code § 1170.126), inmates whose third-strike offense was not a serious or dangerous felony may petition for resentencing; persons who, during the offense, intended to cause great bodily injury are statutorily ineligible (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii)).
- Frierson petitioned for recall/resentencing; the trial court denied relief, finding he intended to cause great bodily injury based on the content of the letters.
- On appeal the issues were (1) whether the trial court may look beyond the conviction to the record to determine disqualifying conduct and (2) what burden and standard of proof applies to the prosecution to show ineligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court may consider record materials beyond the conviction to determine if the offense involved intent to cause great bodily injury | People: court may examine all relevant, reliable, admissible record materials to determine disqualification | Frierson: court limited to the facts necessarily decided by the conviction; must not go beyond the basis of the conviction | Court: Trial court may review the record of conviction (including transcripts and other record materials) to determine disqualifying conduct; may infer intent from the defendant's statements in the record |
| Whether the prosecutor bears the burden to prove ineligibility and, if so, the standard of proof | People: when prosecutor alleges disqualification, prosecution must prove it | Frierson: relies on cases (Arevalo) arguing prosecution must prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: Prosecutor bears burden to prove disqualification; preponderance of the evidence is the proper standard (higher standards not constitutionally required) |
| Whether Proposition 36 resentencing requires jury trial or elevated proof protections because of potential loss of relief | People: no right to jury or elevated proof because resentencing reduces, not increases, punishment | Frierson: trial court’s summary review risks relitigating underlying facts and should require greater protections | Court: No right to jury or beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard; procedures permit court factfinding from the record when resolving eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guerrero, 44 Cal.3d 343 (trial court may look to the record of conviction to determine facts relevant to sentence enhancements or classification)
- People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (discussion of the scope of inquiry into prior convictions and basis-of-conviction rule)
- People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (post-conviction admissions not part of the "record of conviction" for enhancement purposes)
- People v. Reed, 13 Cal.4th 217 (preliminary hearing transcripts and similar materials may form part of the record of conviction)
- People v. Arevalo, 244 Cal.App.4th 846 (appellate decision holding ineligibility must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt — discussed and declined by this court)
- People v. Kaulick, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (prosecutor bears burden to prove disqualification; applied preponderance standard)
- People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (recognizes preponderance as the generally applied standard for proving ineligibility under Prop. 36)