97 Cal.App.5th 978
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2009 Guevara was convicted of felony spousal abuse (nonserious/nonviolent) and had two prior strikes and three one-year prior-prison-term enhancements; he was sentenced to 25 years-to-life plus 3 years.
- In 2013 he petitioned for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act (Pen. Code §1170.126); the trial court denied relief based on public-safety risk and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- In 2021 the Legislature enacted SB 483 (now §1172.75), invalidating many pre‑2020 one‑year prior‑prison enhancements and directing recall and resentencing where such enhancements appear in the judgment.
- CDCR identified Guevara as eligible; the court struck his three prior-prison‑term enhancements under §1172.75 and, relying on §1172.75(d)(2), resentenced him to a doubled determinate term (8 years) rather than the indeterminate 25‑to‑life.
- The People sought writ relief; the Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ directing the superior court to vacate its recall/resentencing order and reinstate Guevara’s 25‑to‑life Three Strikes sentence, holding §1172.75 could not be read to nullify the §1170.126 public‑safety procedure enacted by voters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Guevara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1172.75(d)(2) requires applying ameliorative law (e.g., Proposition 36 reductions) on recall so that a Three Strikes life term must be converted to a doubled determinate term despite a prior §1170.126 denial | §1172.75 requires striking only invalid prior prison enhancements; it cannot nullify §1170.126’s petition requirement and the trial court’s public‑safety discretion | §1172.75(d)(2) mandates applying any later sentencing changes that reduce sentences, so the court must fully resentence him as a second striker (double term) | Court: Agrees with People; §1172.75 cannot be read to override §1170.126’s public‑safety gate and thus cannot reduce Guevara’s Three Strikes life term here |
| Whether SB 483 (§1172.75) unconstitutionally amends the voter‑enacted Reform Act (§1170.126) because it was not enacted by two‑thirds of each house | SB 483 cannot amend or repeal initiative protections in Proposition 36 (which permits legislative amendment only by 2/3 vote), so §1172.75 cannot operate to eliminate §1170.126’s procedures/standards | §1172.75 is a valid statute that applies to recall proceedings and requires full resentencing under current law | Court: Agrees with People; applying §1172.75 to defeat §1170.126’s public‑safety procedure would constitute an unconstitutional amendment of the initiative statute |
| Whether recalling sentence under §1172.75 vacates only the invalid enhancements or the entire indeterminate Three Strikes sentence (triggering full §1170.12 resentencing) | Only the prior‑prison‑term enhancements are invalidated; the indeterminate Three Strikes term imposed under Proposition 36 and §1170.126 remains unless and until §1170.126 relief is properly granted | Recalling vacates the whole sentence, making the defendant an unsentenced person entitled to full resentencing and application of current ameliorative laws (including §1170.12) | Court: Finds that vacating the enhancements does not erase the §1170.126 framework; §1172.75 cannot be read to automatically convert a prior §1170.126‑denied life term into a determinate doubled term |
| Whether denying §1172.75(d)(2) relief to inmates like Guevara violates equal protection by treating similarly situated defendants differently | Distinctions are lawful because the Legislature may address related but distinct areas; §1172.75 does not prohibit what §1170.126 authorizes nor authorize what §1170.126 prohibits | Not applying §1172.75(d)(2) here treats similarly situated nonserious/nonviolent third strikers differently and is arbitrary | Court: Rejects Guevara’s equal protection claim |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (discusses Proposition 36’s balance of mitigation and public safety and scope of §1170.126)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (on scope of resentencing after recall in other contexts)
- People v. Padilla, 13 Cal.5th 152 (recall/resentencing results in vacatur of original sentence and permits imposition of any appropriate sentence)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (initiative‑statute amendment limits and when Legislature may alter initiative measures)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption of retroactivity principles)