People v. Guilford, 228 Cal. App. 4th 651

Background

Michael Guilford, serving an indeterminate life term under California's Three Strikes law for a 1994 spousal-abuse conviction, petitioned for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36).
The Act provides a two-step retrospective process: (1) court determines statutory eligibility; (2) if eligible, court holds a hearing on public-safety risk and possible resentencing.
Guilford’s petition alleged his 1994 conviction involved intent to cause great bodily injury, a disqualifying factor under the Act, and noted three prior strikes (1977 arson, 1983 arson, 1985 assault with a deadly weapon).
The trial court relied on this court’s prior unpublished appellate opinion describing the facts of the 1994 offense (injuries, nurse’s observations, prior domestic violence incidents) and found Guilford intended to cause great bodily injury, denying the petition as statutorily ineligible.
Guilford appealed, arguing the trial court improperly relied on the prior opinion (denying notice and an opportunity to be heard), that the opinion didn’t establish intent to cause great bodily injury, and that he was entitled to a jury determination.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (among other things) that pleading/proof is not required in the retrospective eligibility step, prior appellate opinion facts are properly considered, and no jury right attaches to this eligibility determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court may consider prior appellate opinion/record to determine retrospective eligibility	People: court may consider the full record (including appellate opinion) to decide statutory eligibility	Guilford: use of prior opinion denied notice and hearing on factual basis; trial court should not rely on it	Affirmed: prior opinion/record admissible and usable to determine eligibility; defendant had remedies earlier and did not challenge opinion facts
Whether pleading and proof of disqualifying facts is required for retrospective relief under §1170.126(e)	People: retrospective provision omits pleading/proof, so no such requirement; legislature/electorate intended difference between prospective and retrospective parts	Guilford: cross-reference to prospective provisions imports pleading/proof requirement	Affirmed: no pleading/proof required for retrospective eligibility; drafters’ omission is meaningful
Whether the facts in the prior opinion suffice to show intent to cause great bodily injury	People: appellate record shows severe injuries and prior violence supporting an intent finding	Guilford: prior opinion lacks specificity to prove intent to cause great bodily injury	Affirmed: substantial evidence in appellate opinion supports finding of intent
Whether Sixth Amendment jury trial right applies to eligibility finding	People: eligibility determination is collateral to sentence modification; no jury right per precedent	Guilford: entitlement to jury to decide eligibility facts	Affirmed: no Sixth Amendment jury right for this eligibility determination (Dillon/Kaulick logic applies)

Key Cases Cited

People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. Ct. App.) (retrospective eligibility does not require prosecution pleading/proving disqualifying factors)
People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describing two-step Prop. 36 framework)
People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (Cal.) (court may consult whole record, including appellate opinions, to determine whether prior conviction qualifies)
People v. White, 223 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court may consider facts of the crime in eligibility review under Prop. 36)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (U.S.) (Supreme Court: Sixth Amendment jury-right doctrines do not apply to collateral sentence-reduction proceedings)
People v. Barnes, 42 Cal.3d 284 (Cal.) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
In re Ryan D., 100 Cal.App.4th 854 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describing substantial-evidence standard in postconviction/sentencing contexts)