People v. White
243 Cal. App. 4th 1354
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1996 Todd Eugene White was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021(a)) and sentenced to 27 years to life under the Three Strikes law.
- Facts: officer observed White walking with a fanny pack, he entered a motel, the officer later found a loaded 9mm pistol in a trash can on the motel’s north stairwell and two matching bullets in White’s fanny pack; no fingerprints linked White to the gun.
- At trial White denied bringing or discarding the gun; prosecution argued he disposed of the gun when the officer approached; jury convicted on a possession theory (actual or constructive possession).
- White petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.126 (Prop. 36 resentencing) seeking recall/resentencing; trial court initially deemed eligible but ultimately denied relief, finding he was “armed” during the offense and thus ineligible under § 1170.126(e)(2).
- On appeal White challenged the trial court’s reliance on People v. White (2014) and argued that (1) that case is distinguishable because here the gun was not observed being discarded, and (2) a possessory offense cannot make one ineligible for Prop. 36 relief by being ‘‘armed.’’ The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record shows defendant was "armed" during his felon-in-possession offense for § 1170.126(e)(2) disqualification | Prosecutor/respondent: the record supports that White either discarded the gun when approached or knowingly possessed it hidden and had ready access, satisfying "armed" | White: facts differ from People v. White (2014); jury could have convicted on mere constructive possession; no actual arming shown | Court: affirmed — jury finding of possession + awareness/ready access suffices to show White was "armed"; White not distinguishable |
| Whether a possessory offense can support a finding of being "armed" for § 1170.126 disqualification | Respondent: statutory phrase "during the commission" (as incorporated) covers being armed during a possessory offense; ready access suffices | White: arming enhancements require nexus/facilitation; possessory offense cannot make one ineligible as "armed" | Court: held the § 1170.126 phrasing differs from § 12022 enhancement language; it requires only that the defendant was armed "during" the offense, so possessory offenses can be disqualifying if the defendant was armed |
| Whether People v. White (2014) is materially distinguishable | Respondent: facts closely match; ready access and actual possession in both cases | White: in that case defendant was seen throwing the gun; here no observed discard, so distinction defeats ineligibility finding | Court: not materially distinguishable—either disposal at the time or prior concealment with awareness yields "armed" status |
| Whether trial court should have used § 1170.126(f) danger-of-release analysis instead of categorical disqualification | Respondent: statute allows categorical exclusions; electorate intended to preclude armed felons from relief | White: even if dangerousness could be handled under (f), statute shouldn’t be rewritten to add protected categories | Court: affirmed categorical disqualification under statute; not this court’s role to disregard voters’ choice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. White, 223 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. Ct. App.) (possession with ready access can support finding defendant was armed)
- People v. Bland, 10 Cal.4th 991 (Cal. 1995) (arming enhancement requires nexus/facilitative connection when statute uses "in the commission")
- People v. Elder, 227 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App.) (defendant may be armed when gun is hidden but readily accessible)
- People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App.) (construing § 1170.126 to allow "armed during" to disqualify possessory offenses)