People v. Pfeifer CA4/2, E059189M

In 1998 Pfeifer was convicted of unlawful obstruction of a telephone line (Pen. Code § 591), criminal threats (§ 422), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245(a)(1)), and received consecutive indeterminate terms under the Three Strikes law (total ~28 years to life).
In 2013 Pfeifer petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code § 1170.126 (the Three Strikes Reform Act / Prop. 36), seeking relief only as to the nonserious § 591 count.
The trial court denied the petition, finding Pfeifer ineligible because one of his current convictions (criminal threats) is a listed serious/violent felony under the statutes implementing Prop. 36.
Pfeifer appealed; the People argued the order might be nonappealable, but the appellate court proceeded to review the merits given unsettled law.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that a petitioner’s eligibility under § 1170.126 must be determined by reference to all offenses that produced the indeterminate life term, not by isolating a single nonserious count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Pfeifer)	Held
Whether a petitioner may obtain resentencing under § 1170.126 by treating a single nonserious count separately when other convictions that produced the indeterminate sentence are serious/violent	Eligibility is determined by all offenses that resulted in the indeterminate life sentence; presence of a serious/violent current felony makes petitioner ineligible	Court should consider each count separately; Pfeifer is eligible as to the nonserious § 591 count	Court held the statute requires considering all felonies that produced the indeterminate sentence; Pfeifer was ineligible because he had a criminal threats/assault conviction that is disqualifying
Whether the trial court’s denial of a § 1170.126 petition is appealable	Even if appealability is uncertain, appellate review is appropriate; court may treat the appeal as a writ if necessary	Implicitly pursued an appeal	Appellate court reviewed the denial on the merits (noting split authority and pending Supreme Court review)

People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (discussing scope and intent of Prop. 36 and resentencing framework)
In re Martinez, 223 Cal.App.4th 610 (holding court must consider all felonies that produced the indeterminate sentence when determining § 1170.126 eligibility)
People v. Leggett, 219 Cal.App.4th 846 (noting issues concerning appealability of postjudgment § 1170.126 orders)
Teal v. Superior Court, 217 Cal.App.4th 308 (one appellate decision addressing nonappealability of § 1170.126 rulings)