People v. Sledge
7 Cal. App. 5th 1089
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017

Background

  • In 1998 Derrick Sledge was convicted of forgery, possession of a fictitious instrument, and second-degree burglary and sentenced under California's Three Strikes law; he later sought resentencing under Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18).
  • The People opposed resentencing, asserting Sledge had a 1980 felony juvenile adjudication for forcible rape (former § 261(2)) that, they argued, disqualifies him under § 1170.18(i).
  • The trial court took judicial notice of and admitted portions of the probation report (including a 1980 juvenile probation report) and found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Sledge suffered the felony forcible-rape juvenile adjudication.
  • The court concluded the 1980 juvenile adjudication is a qualifying disqualifying prior conviction under § 1170.18(i) because it is: a listed “super strike” (§ 667(e)(2)(C)(iv)); an offense listed in Welf. & Inst. Code § 707(b); and meets the conditions of § 667(d)(3).
  • Sledge appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for the juvenile adjudication finding, (2) juvenile adjudications are not “prior convictions” under § 1170.18(i), and (3) even if counted, his adjudication does not qualify as a disqualifying offense.
  • The Court of Appeal affirmed: (a) substantial evidence supports the adjudication finding (probation report admissible hearsay for sentencing/eligibility purposes), (b) certain felony juvenile adjudications count as prior convictions under § 1170.18(i), and (c) Sledge’s forcible rape adjudication is disqualifying.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (People) Defendant's Argument (Sledge) Held
1) Was there sufficient evidence that Sledge suffered a 1980 felony rape juvenile adjudication? Probation report and court records show a sustained felony §261(2) juvenile petition; admissible and reliable for eligibility hearing. Probation report is inadmissible/unreliable hearsay; entitled to a trial on the issue with only reliable records. Held: Yes. Probation report admissible as reliable hearsay in this sentencing/eligibility context; substantial evidence supports the finding.
2) Is hearsay from probation reports admissible at a Proposition 47 eligibility hearing? Yes — eligibility hearings are sentencing-type proceedings where reliable hearsay (probation reports) may be considered. No — Reed (trial on prior conviction allegations) suggests hearsay limits; defendant argued stricter rules should apply. Held: Probation report hearsay is admissible if sufficiently reliable; Reed is distinguishable.
3) Do felony juvenile adjudications count as “prior convictions” under § 1170.18(i)? Yes — §1170.18(i) incorporates the definition in §667(d), which expressly treats certain juvenile adjudications as prior serious/violent felony convictions. No — juvenile adjudications are distinct from adult convictions and §1170.18(i) does not expressly mention juvenile adjudications. Held: Yes. Where statutes (e.g., §667(d)(3), WIC §707(b)) identify juvenile adjudications as prior convictions for enhancement, those adjudications are disqualifying under §1170.18(i).
4) Does Sledge’s 1980 forcible-rape juvenile adjudication meet the statutory elements to be disqualifying under §1170.18(i)? Yes — forcible rape is a listed "super strike" (§667(e)(2)(C)(iv)), appears in WIC §707(b), qualifies as a serious/violent felony under §667(d)(1), and the §667(d)(3) conditions (age, fitness, ward adjudication) are met. No — record does not show the rape was by force (alternative statutory language allows "fear"), so it may not meet WIC §707(b) or other elements. Held: Yes. The probation report’s victim statement supports an implied finding of force; all §667(d)(3) conditions satisfied; the adjudication is disqualifying.

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Bolin, 18 Cal.4th 297 (Cal. 1998) (standard for substantial-evidence review of historical facts)
  • People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (Cal. 1978) (probation report hearsay may be admissible in sentencing when reliable)
  • People v. Lamb, 76 Cal.App.4th 664 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (use of probation-report hearsay in sentencing context)
  • People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (burden on prosecution to prove disqualifying prior by preponderance; Proposition 36/47 comparison)
  • People v. Johnson, 1 Cal.App.5th 953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (permissible evidence sources at Proposition 47 eligibility hearings)
  • People v. Reed, 13 Cal.4th 217 (Cal. 1996) (limits on probation-report hearsay in prior-conviction trials; distinguished here)
  • People v. Thurston, 244 Cal.App.4th 644 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (juvenile adjudications can be treated as disqualifying priors under analogous statutes)
  • People v. Arias, 240 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (same conclusion re: juvenile adjudications in Proposition 36 context)
  • People v. Zamarripa, 247 Cal.App.4th 1179 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing electorate intent that violent sex offenders not benefit from Prop. 47)
  • People v. Carpenter, 21 Cal.4th 1016 (Cal. 1999) (deference to trial court findings, including implied findings)
Read the full case