64 Cal.App.5th 641
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- David J. Valencia was serving a 25-to-life third-strike indeterminate sentence for a 2009 corporal-injury conviction; he has an extensive prior criminal history.
- Proposition 36 (§ 1170.126) created a two-year window (until Nov. 2014) to petition for recall of third‑strike sentences, with a "good cause" exception for later filings.
- Valencia filed a timely petition in 2013; the trial court denied it on dangerousness grounds, and the denial was affirmed on appeal (Valencia). The two‑year statutory window closed while that appeal was pending.
- In December 2017 Valencia filed a second petition alleging new rehabilitative evidence; the trial court denied it as successive and untimely, ruling the "good cause" exception did not permit a second, belated petition based on rehabilitation.
- On appeal Valencia argued successive petitions should be allowed and that his prison rehabilitation constitutes good cause; the Court of Appeal assumed (without deciding) successive petitions might be permitted but held rehabilitation progress cannot, as a matter of law, constitute good cause to excuse an untimely successive petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Valencia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1170.126 permits successive recall petitions after the two‑year window | Statute’s two‑year cutoff and structure preclude or do not contemplate successive, untimely petitions | The statute is ambiguous; "a petition" may include plural and successive petitions should be allowed | Court did not definitively decide; assumed arguendo successive petitions could be allowed but resolved case on other grounds |
| Whether rehabilitative progress in prison constitutes "good cause" to excuse untimely successive petitions | "Good cause" does not include changed rehabilitative circumstances; allowing it would eviscerate the limitations period and contradict voter intent | Rehabilitative progress and new institutional records are changed circumstances that justify a second chance and excuse delay | Rehabilitative progress alone cannot, as a matter of law, constitute good cause to excuse an untimely successive petition; denial affirmed |
| Whether a later change in law (People v. Williams) excused the untimely filing or shows error in the 2013 dangerousness ruling | The claim is forfeited and the 2013 petition was fully litigated and affirmed | Williams requires considering future dangerousness at earliest possible release and may affect the dangerousness assessment | Claim forfeited and not considered on merits; court declines to reopen the fully litigated 2013 proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (Cal. 2017) (Supreme Court affirmed denial and held Prop 47’s definition of dangerousness did not apply to Prop 36 resentencing)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) (late petitions filed while direct appeal on related issues is pending generally constitute good cause)
- People v. Drew, 16 Cal.App.5th 253 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (refused to find good cause for a two‑year delay based on lack of counsel/unawareness; cautioned against nullifying the limitations period)
- People v. Williams, 19 Cal.App.5th 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (dangerousness inquiry must consider when, if ever, defendant would be released if resentenced)
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (pendency of appellate proceedings and lack of trial court jurisdiction can constitute good cause)