People v. Manning
172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 560
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Manning pled guilty in 1996 in Los Angeles County to commercial burglary, possession of a forged instrument, and possession of a forged driver’s license, with two prior serious felony convictions noted under Three Strikes, resulting in a 25-years-to-life sentence.
- Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act) authorized resentencing for eligible inmates; Manning petitioned under 1170.126 in 2012 to recall and resentence as a second-strike offender.
- 2013 trial court denial held Manning ineligible due to a prior conviction deemed disqualifying.
- Manning appealed and filed a mandamus petition; the court addressed whether the denial was proper and whether the record could show disqualifying priors.
- The court held the record before the court was insufficiently clear about which priors might be disqualifying; it remanded with instructions to allow the DA to prove disqualifying priors and for Manning to respond, and to specify the relied-upon records and reasoning.
- The decision ultimately reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with these instructions; writ of mandate denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Manning eligible for recall under 1170.126 given prior convictions? | Manning. | People. | Remanded for eligibility determination |
| May the trial court rely on the record of conviction to determine whether a prior offense was disqualifying? | Manning argues no, cannot relitigate; reliance improper. | People argues court may determine from record if disqualifying. | Court may consider substance of priors; remand to apply proper record-based analysis |
| What procedure ensures proper notice and opportunity to contest disqualifying priors? | Manning contends trial court lacks clear basis and notice. | People asserts proper review under Kaulick/Descamps framework. | Remand with explicit procedures for DA to show/disprove disqualifying priors and for Manning to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guerrero, 44 Cal.3d 343 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 1988) (look to substance of prior conviction to determine if it is a serious felony)
- People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 106 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2000) (conduct over form governs whether a prior conviction is a serious felony)
- People v. Gomez, 24 Cal.App.4th 22 (Cal. App. 1994) (conduct-focused approach to prior convictions)
- People v. Miles, 43 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2008) (record-of-conviction analysis for serious felony determinations)
- People v. White, 223 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. App. 2014) (armed-with-a-firearm exclusion shown by record of conviction rather than elements of current offense)
- People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2006) (conduct-based approach to determining serious/violent felony status)
- Kaulick, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (Cal. App. 2013) (procedural notice and hearing on dangerousness in resentencing under 1170.126)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Supreme Court 2013) (Apprendi considerations on priors; Seventh Amendment implications for recidivist findings)