People v. Saelee
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendant pleaded no contest in 2014 to possession of marijuana for sale (§ 11359) and admitted a 1994 prior serious felony; sentenced to an aggregate seven-year term.
- In 2016 defendant petitioned to recall and resentence under Proposition 64 (§ 11361.8) to redesignate the felony as a misdemeanor; prosecution opposed as posing an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety."
- The prosecution's written opposition contained factual assertions about prior violent and firearms-related offenses and the circumstances of the 2013 arrest, but offered no admissible evidence or requests for judicial notice of court files.
- The trial court summarily denied the petition, finding the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger, and made no record of evidence relied upon.
- The appellate court reviewed whether (1) the proper standard of proof for the dangerousness/suitability step is clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence, and (2) whether the prosecution was required to present admissible evidence to support an unreasonable risk finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for dangerousness under § 11361.8(b) | People argued the statute does not require clear and convincing proof for the second-step dangerousness finding | Defendant argued the People must prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence | Held: Clear and convincing applies only to first-step eligibility; second-step dangerousness uses preponderance of the evidence (default Evidence Code § 115) |
| Necessity of evidence to support dangerousness finding | People suggested written assertions and references to case numbers suffice; no authority requiring production of formal evidence | Defendant argued prosecution must introduce admissible evidence to establish unreasonable risk | Held: Trial court must rely on admissible evidence (e.g., probation reports, prior transcripts, CLETS rap sheets, prison records, judicially noticed files); counsel argument alone is insufficient |
| Proper use of § 1170.18(b) factors in § 11361.8(b)(1) | People asserted the court may consider prior conviction history and reports without formal proof | Defendant argued the court could not base denial solely on unsworn prosecutorial assertions | Held: § 11361.8(b)(1) expressly permits consideration of § 1170.18(b) evidence; such evidence must actually be presented or judicially noticed before the court may rely on it |
| Remedy where dangerousness finding rests on unsupported assertions | People did not ask to remand; maintained denial was justified | Defendant sought reversal and remand for new evidentiary proceedings | Held: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings allowing presentation of evidence on dangerousness; trial court abused discretion by denying petition without evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (explains statutory definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" referring to super-strike violent felonies)
- People v. Redd, 48 Cal.4th 691 (statements of counsel are not evidence)
- People v. Sledge, 7 Cal.App.5th 1089 (trial court may take judicial notice of prior court files and rely on probation reports in resentencing under Prop. 47)
- People v. Jefferson, 1 Cal.App.5th 235 (applies preponderance standard to second-step resentencing suitability under Prop. 47)
- People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (applies preponderance standard to Prop. 36 second-step suitability)
- People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 106 (CLETS rap sheet and official records as proof of criminal history)
- People v. Barragan, 32 Cal.4th 236 (remand for retrial or further proceedings where prior determination reversed for insufficient evidence)