The People v. Super. Ct.
215 Cal. App. 4th 1279
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kaulick, an inmate, was serving a 25-to-life term under the three-strikes law for a non-serious/non-violent third felony.
- Prop. 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act) creates retroactive and prospective relief, but requires notice and a hearing on dangerousness for resentencing.
- Trial court granted Kaulick’s petition without notice or an opportunity for the District Attorney to contest dangerousness.
- District Attorney sought writ of mandate to review the order; the court issued an order to show cause.
- The court held that resentencing under the Act must involve notice and a hearing, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof on dangerousness by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Issue-focused proceedings include whether retroactive relief applies, whether notice/hearing is required, and the standard of proof for dangerousness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition for resentencing is appealable or reviewable by writ | Kaulick; the order qualifies as a post-judgment modification | People asserts appeal/writ remedy is proper | Petition is reviewable by both appeal and writ of mandate |
| Whether the prosecution had right to notice and a hearing on dangerousness | People must be heard and present evidence | Kaulick argues no such requirement | Prosecution entitled to notice and a full adversarial hearing on dangerousness |
| Whether Kaulick and the victim have rights to be heard and present at hearings | Kaulick and victim should be heard | Not specified separately | Both defendant and victim have rights to notice and be heard |
| Whether the resentencing must occur before the original sentencing judge; waiver allowed | Original judge should decide; waiver possible | Judge assignment may vary, but waivers possible | Initial sentencing judge should rule; waiver permitted |
| What standard of proof governs dangerousness in retroactive resentencing | Beyond a reasonable doubt | Preponderance of the evidence suffices | Preponderance of the evidence applies |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 157 Cal.App.3d 494 (Cal.App.3d 1984) (post-judgment modification; appealability)
- People v. Borja, 95 Cal.App.4th 481 (Cal.App.4th 2002) (modification of sentence; appealable post-judgment order)
- People v. Towne, 44 Cal.4th 63 (Cal.4th 2007) (constitutional limits on sentencing factors; preponderance standard)
- Yearwood, 213 Cal.App.4th 161 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (retrospective vs prospective relief under Prop. 36; escape valve)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (downward sentence modification not implicating Sixth Amendment rights)
- People v. Rodriguez, 17 Cal.4th 253 (Cal.4th 1998) (right to be heard on remand to strike prior convictions)
- People v. Dennis, 177 Cal.App.3d 863 (Cal.App.3d 1986) (due process in resentencing remand)
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 228 (Cal.4th 2002) (standard of proof and evidentiary requirements)
- In re Coley, 55 Cal.4th 524 (Cal.4th 2012) (preponderance standard for risk-based decision)
- Peters v. Peters, 52 Cal.App.4th 1487 (Cal.App.4th 1997) (evidentiary standard in family-law-like proceedings)