People v. Losa
232 Cal. App. 4th 789
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 creates a postconviction recall/resentencing process for third-strike inmates with indeterminate life sentences for nonserious/nonviolent felonies.
- If the petitioner meets criteria in Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (e), he or she may be resentenced as a second striker unless an unreasonable risk to public safety is shown.
- Losa, an inmate serving 25 years to life for a nonviolent felony, petitioned for recall and resentencing under the Act.
- The trial court held a hearing and found that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, denying the petition.
- The appellate court held that the People bear the burden by a preponderance of the evidence to present facts supporting a dangerousness finding, and that the trial court’s ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The court also held that section 1170.18, subdivision (c) does not modify section 1170.126, subdivision (f); and discussed equal protection related to proof requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for dangerousness findings? | Losa argues for jury trial and beyond-doubt proof. | People argue no jury for this postconviction determination. | No jury trial required; preponderance standard governs |
| What standard and burden of proof apply to dangerousness findings under the Act? | Losa contends strict/specified standard applies. | People argue preponderance is sufficient. | Preponderance of the evidence; abuse of discretion review of denial |
| Does equal protection require the same standard as those newly sentenced under the three-strikes law? | Losa asserts equal protection requires identical standards. | People contend no; petitioner is not similarly situated to others. | No violation; petitioner not similarly situated to other groups; upheld approach |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kaulick, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (distinguishes recall proceedings and equal protection considerations)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (equal protection analysis for classification schemes)
- People v. Wutzke, 28 Cal.4th 923 (Cal. 2002) (defines equal protection applicability in sentencing contexts)