People v. White
223 Cal. App. 4th 512
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 1995 Mark Anthony White, a felon, was convicted of felon-in-possession (former Pen. Code § 12021(a)) after officers saw him carrying a rolled-up cloth, run when approached, reach into the cloth and toss a loaded .357 revolver into his truck; he was sentenced under the pre-Prop 36 Three Strikes law to 25 years-to-life as a third-strike offender.
- Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012) made certain inmates serving life for a nonserious, nonviolent third felony eligible for resentencing under Pen. Code § 1170.126, subject to exclusions (including an "armed with a firearm" exclusion folded into § 1170.126(e)(2)).
- White petitioned under § 1170.126 to recall and resentence as a second-strike offender; the trial court issued an OSC, held a hearing, and denied the petition, concluding White was ineligible because he was "armed with a firearm" during the offense.
- White argued he was eligible because (1) he was never charged or sentenced under an "armed" enhancement and (2) simple possession is not the same as being "armed," and the plead-and-prove language in the prospective part of the Reform Act should apply to § 1170.126.
- The trial record and prior appellate materials show White had actual/physical possession and ready access to the gun (officers observed him carrying the cloth and he threw the gun into the truck); defense counsel conceded at the resentencing hearing that White had been armed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that where the record establishes a defendant was armed during the commission of a felon-in-possession offense, the armed-with-a-firearm exclusion bars § 1170.126 resentencing even if the information did not allege an "arming" enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "armed-with-a-firearm" exclusion in §§ 667(e)(2)(C)(iii)/1170.12(c)(2)(C)(iii) (as incorporated by § 1170.126(e)(2)) renders White ineligible for § 1170.126 resentencing | The exclusion applies when the record shows the defendant was armed during the commission of the current offense; no pleading or enhancement is required in the retrospective remedy | White: possession alone (and lack of an armed enhancement allegation) does not mean he was "armed" for the exclusion; plead-and-prove language requires an allegation and proof | Held: Exclusion applies. Where the record shows actual possession/ready access (i.e., defendant was armed), the defendant is ineligible for § 1170.126 resentencing even if the information did not allege an arming enhancement; the plead-and-prove requirement in the prospective provisions does not import into § 1170.126. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (explaining § 1170.126 eligibility framework)
- People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (distinguishing prospective and retrospective relief under Prop. 36)
- People v. Bland, 10 Cal.4th 991 (defining "arming" as ready access to a weapon)
- People v. Padilla, 98 Cal.App.4th 127 (elements of felon-in-possession: possession or custody or control)
- People v. Sifuentes, 195 Cal.App.4th 1410 (constructive possession requires dominion and control)