People v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. App. 4th 1007

Prop. 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act) amended sentencing for third strikes and created a recall/resentencing mechanism under § 1170.126.
Martinez, serving 25-to-life for non-serious/non-violent felonies, petitioned to recall and resentence under Prop. 36.
Trial court found Martinez eligible for recall and scheduled a hearing on danger to public safety.
People challenged the eligibility finding, arguing Martinez was armed with a firearm during the current offense.
The issue was whether “armed with a firearm” includes possession where the firearm was not on Martinez’s person but available for immediate use.
The appellate court granted the People’s writ petition, holding the trial court exceeded its statutory power by finding Martinez eligible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ‘armed with a firearm’ disqualifies recall eligibility	People contends Martinez was armed	Martinez argues armed means actual possession on person	Yes; armed includes available for immediate use, not only on-person possession

Vidal v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 999 (2007) (People may seek writs when appeal is not provided by statute)
Kaulick v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (2013) (appealability of eligibility findings under § 1238; writ review proper)
People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (2013) (Prop. 36 arming and sentencing framework; public safety purpose)
People v. Benavides, 99 Cal.App.4th 100 (2002) (analysis of when initial judgments affect rights and review)
People v. Weidert, 39 Cal.3d 836 (1985) (legislative/judicial construction awareness at enactment)