People v. Frierson, 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 582

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 narrowed who qualifies for an indeterminate 25-years-to-life third-strike sentence and created a resentencing procedure (Pen. Code, § 1170.126) for prisoners serving prior Three Strikes terms.
The Act preserves certain disqualifying criteria (e.g., current offense involving firearm or intent to cause great bodily injury) that must be pleaded and proved by the prosecution for prospective Third Strike sentencing (§ 1170.12(c)(2)(C)).
James Frierson, previously convicted of two robberies (strikes), was serving 25-to-life for stalking; after the Reform Act he petitioned for resentencing under § 1170.126.
The People opposed resentencing, arguing Frierson was ineligible because, during the stalking offense, he intended to cause great bodily injury—one of the Act’s disqualifying factors.
The trial court and Court of Appeal applied a preponderance standard and found Frierson ineligible; the California Supreme Court reversed, holding the People must prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt, while the court retains discretion to deny resentencing on public-safety grounds by a preponderance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What burden of proof must the People meet to establish a disqualifying factor at a § 1170.126 resentencing hearing?	People: apply preponderance of evidence because § 1170.126 omits pleading-and-proof and the prior offense record may be incomplete.	Frierson: apply beyond a reasonable doubt because the Act’s prospective and resentencing provisions are parallel and should use the same standard.	Held: Beyond a reasonable doubt. The People bear that burden to prove ineligibility for resentencing; the trial court still may deny resentencing on public-safety grounds (discretionary) using a preponderance standard for that assessment.

In re Yurko, 10 Cal.3d 857 (establishes People’s burden to prove prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal convictions and core criminal facts)
People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (discusses prospective vs. resentencing provisions of the Reform Act and omitted pleading-and-proof in § 1170.126)
People v. Johnson, 61 Cal.4th 674 (notes parallel structure of Act’s sentencing and resentencing provisions)
People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (applied preponderance at resentencing; disapproved to the extent inconsistent)
People v. Arevalo, 244 Cal.App.4th 836 (held beyond-a-reasonable-doubt applies to resentencing ineligibility)