People v. Smith
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 68
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- 1996 jury convicted Smith of methamphetamine possession for sale and sale/transport; five prior burglaries with Three Strikes; 25-to-life indeterminate term on count 1 and stay on count 2; affirmance in a prior unpublished decision.
- Act changed Three Strikes eligibility: only serious/violent third strikes impose indeterminate life; created recall/remand pathway via §1170.126 for non-serious/violent third strikes.
- Smith petitioned under §1170.126 to recall his sentence and be resentenced as a second-strike offender; court denied relief due to asserted public-safety danger from violent acts in prison.
- Smith sought automatic resentencing under amendments to §§667/1170.12 for two-strike eligibility; argued retroactivity, equal protection, and “unusual” sentence concerns.
- Court noted Proposition 47 defines “unreasonable risk” for §1170.18, but did not resolve retroactivity applicability to §1170.126 petitions; postjudgment order affirmed.
- Disposition: affirmance of postjudgment order without prejudice to petition under §1170.18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1170.126 automatic recall applies to two-strike eligibility | Smith argues retroactive two-strike relief via amended statutes | People argue §1170.126 governs recall; amendments to §667/§1170.12 not universally retroactive | No automatic recall; retroactivity limited to §1170.126 context |
| Retroactivity of amendments to reducing punishment | Estrada retroactivity should apply absent savings clause | Act indicates limited retroactivity to §1170.126; retroactivity not universal | Estrada does not apply; §1170.126 controls retroactivity in this context |
| Equal protection for ameliorative benefits | Two-strike relief should apply equally to pre/post-2012 offenders | Prospective application preserves deterrence; not violative | Prospective application of §1170.126/amendments not violative of equal protection |
| Whether the sentence is unconstitutionally unusual under Art. I, §17 | Amended scheme may render sentence unusual | No prejudice; original indeterminate sentence valid under former law | Sentence not unconstitutionally unusual under Schueren; no remedy required |
| Impact of Proposition 47 definition on §1170.126 | Definition of danger to public safety may alter §1170.126 outcomes | Not invoked unless applied; unresolved by this court | Court declines to resolve Prop. 47 retroactivity but allows §1170.18 petition option later |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative punishment reductions absent saving clause)
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. App. 2013) (statutory changes not retroactive absent recall petition under §1170.126)
- Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 595 (Cal. 2014) (recall-denial orders are appealable; governs applicability of §1170.126/recall petitions)
- People v. Briceno, 34 Cal.4th 451 (Cal. 2004) (avoid surplusage; give meaning to every word of enactments)
- Way v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App.3d 165 (Cal. App. 1977) (retroactivity distinctions involving major penal reforms not controlling here)
- In re Chavez, 114 Cal.App.4th 989 (Cal. App. 2004) (discusses retroactivity considerations where Legislature indicated intent)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003) (ameliorative punishment provisions may be prospective only to preserve deterrence)
- People v. Kennedy, 209 Cal.App.4th 385 (Cal. App. 2012) (prospective application of ameliorative relief not violative of equal protection)
- People v. Schueren, 10 Cal.3d 553 (Cal. 1973) (unusual punishment doctrine; applicability to protect against disproportionate sentences)