THE PEOPLE,
2d. Crim. No. B329457
Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six
December 8, 2023
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Super. Ct. No. 1183843) (Santa Barbara County)
The role of the judiciary is to interpret statutes, not to draft them. Our opinion follows this dictum.
Edgardo Ortiz Guevara was sentenced to 28 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law. His third strike was a nonserious, nonviolent felony. Guevara also had prior prison term enhancements. When the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Prop. 36) (Reform Act) was enacted by California voters, Guevara petitioned the trial court for relief from his life sentence pursuant to
In 2009, Guevara was convicted of felony spousal abuse (
In 2013, Guevara petitioned for resentencing under the Reform Act. The trial court denied him relief, finding that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (
“Guevara‘s criminal record, record of discipline, and the testimony of the witnesses support the trial court‘s finding. Guevara has an extensive criminal history, which includes five felonies, multiple prison and jail sentences, and probation and parole violations. Although his prior strikes are remote and did not involve personal infliction of violence, he recently possessed deadly weapons in prison. In 2011, a correctional officer searched his cell and found three metal ‘inmate manufactured’ weapons hidden in two bars of soap. Two of the weapons were sharpened to a point. In 2014, while this petition was pending, Guevara was disciplined for possessing a deadly weapon when a piece of a razor blade was found in the common area of his shared cell. He testified at the resentencing hearing he had no good time or work time credits.
“A gang expert testified that Guevara is a member in good standing of Casa Blanca, a southern Hispanic and Sureno gang. Prison records from 2001 show that he was working with the Mexican Mafia in prison. He was the ‘shot caller’ for members of southern Hispanic gangs from the ‘Inland Empire.’ He was placed in administrative segregation in 2001 because the Inland Empire gangs under his influence were ‘the major obstacle’ to a negotiated truce between northern and southern gang members. In 2012, a prison gang roster showed Guevara was still a southern Hispanic gang member in good standing.” (People v. Guevara, supra, B262954.)
In 2021, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) adding what is now
In June of 2023, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether Guevara was entitled to have his sentence recalled and be resentenced. The People agreed that the prior prison term enhancements must be stricken but disagreed with Guevara on the scope of resentencing.
The People argued that striking the prior prison term enhancements did not affect Guevara‘s three strikes sentence of 25 years to life. Guevara argued that he must be resentenced under the Reform Act because
The trial court expressed its concern for public safety, but believed it was compelled by law to resentence Guevara. After striking the three prior prison term enhancements, the court resentenced Guevara to eight years, double the upper term on the felony spousal abuse count. This would make Guevara eligible for imminent release. The People sought a stay and a writ of mandate and appealed to challenge the resentencing. We issued a stay and elected to review the matter in the writ proceeding to expedite its resolution.
DISCUSSION
Under the original Three Strikes law, a defendant with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions would be sentenced to a life term for a current felony conviction even if the current conviction was not for a serious or violent felony. (
Guevara sought resentencing under
Guevara‘s view of
In other words, the Legislature may not amend a statute enacted by initiative unless the initiative allows such an amendment, and then only upon
The Reform Act allows the Legislature to amend it by statute only if the statute passes each house of the Legislature by a vote of two-thirds of the membership. (Prop. 36, § 11(b).) Senate Bill 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), codified as
An amendment changes an existing initiative statute by adding or taking away from it some particular provision. (Pearson, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 571.) Here Guevara‘s interpretation of
Guevara cites People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 (Buycks), for the proposition that when a sentence is recalled, the court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall. But Buycks concerned Proposition 47 (approved November 4, 2014) reclassifying certain drug and theft offenses from felonies and wobblers to misdemeanors. The question was whether it was appropriate to strike felony-based enhancements after the underlying offenses were reduced to misdemeanors. Buycks did not involve resentencing procedures for three strikes inmates under the Reform Act. We will not speculate what the Legislature may have intended in enacting
Guevara claims that not applying the resentencing provisions of
If Guevara is suggesting that under
The two statutory schemes are not so inconsistent that they cannot coexist. Guevara‘s prior prison term enhancements were struck pursuant to
The dissent is premised on the theory that when the trial court found Guevara eligible for relief under
Guevara was sentenced to 25 years to life under the original Three Strikes law. The Reform Act allows resentencing, but only for those found not to be a danger to the public. Guevara was found to be a danger to the public. Thus the Reform Act mandates that Guevara remains sentenced to 25 years to life.
The dissent states that its view comports with the voters’ intent in passing Proposition 36: to require life sentences only when a defendant‘s current conviction is for a violent or serious crime. But the voters’ intent was that a
The dissent relies on
But
The dissent suggests that
We need not refute the dissent point by point. No matter how the dissent attempts to rationalize the application of the resentencing provisions of
Finally, the dissent acknowledges how unfair it would be to provide relief only to those inmates serving an indeterminate term with prior prison term enhancements and to exclude relief to those with a lesser criminal history. We agree with this acknowledgement. If the Legislature intended to reward defendants serving a prior prison term and not those who had not served prior prison terms, we would agree with Mr. Bumble in Dickens‘s Oliver Twist that “the law is a ass—a idiot.” We in the majority wish to state on the record the law is not “a ass.”
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its order recalling Guevara‘s sentence and imposing a second strike sentence, and to reinstate Guevara‘s three strikes sentence of 25 years to life in prison. This court‘s temporary stay order of June 13, 2023, shall dissolve upon the respondent superior court‘s compliance with the peremptory writ.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
GILBERT, P. J.
I concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J., dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The trial court correctly concluded that Guevara is entitled to have the three prior prison term enhancements stricken from his sentence pursuant to
The Three Strikes law
“Under the Three Strikes law as originally enacted, a felony defendant who had been convicted of a single prior serious or violent felony (a second[-]strike defendant) was to be sentenced to a term equal to ‘twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.‘” (People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 652 (Conley).) “By contrast, a defendant who had been convicted of two or more prior serious or violent felonies (a third[-]strike defendant) was to be sentenced to ‘an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of at least 25 years.” (Ibid.)
In 2012, the electorate passed Proposition 36, which changed the Three Strikes law‘s penalty provisions. Relevant here, “many third[-]strike defendants are [now] excepted from the provision imposing an indeterminate life sentence [citation] and are instead sentenced in the same way as second[-]strike defendants [citation]: that is, they receive a term equal to ‘twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction’ [citation].” (Conley, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 653; see
In short, Proposition 36 divided defendants with two prior strike convictions who commit a third nonserious, nonviolent felony into one of two groups. The first group includes those persons “presently serving” an indeterminate sentence under the pre-Proposition 36 version of the Three Strikes law. They are subject to the provisions of
Section 1172.75
In 2021, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 483), adding what is now
“Resentencing pursuant to [section 1172.75] shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.”
Analysis
In 2009, a jury convicted Guevara of felony domestic violence (
In 2013, Guevara petitioned the trial court for resentencing pursuant to
In 2023, CDCR notified the trial court that Guevara was serving a sentence with now-invalid one-year prison prior enhancements. Upon verifying that information, the court was required to recall Guevara‘s sentence and resentence him. (
My colleagues posit that only the prior prison term enhancements were vacated from Guevara‘s sentence, obviating any need for a full resentencing. (Maj. opn. ante, at pp. 8-10.) But “‘a criminal sentence is, like an atom, indivisible: “An aggregate prison term is not a series of separate independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components.“‘”
Because the trial court recalled his sentence, Guevara was no longer “presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment” (
In my view, sentencing Guevara pursuant to the provisions of
The district attorney claims that Conley, supra, 63 Cal.4th 646, bars resentencing Guevara pursuant to
Conley also noted that applying
“It is a settled principle of statutory construction that[] courts should ‘strive to give meaning to every word in a statute and to avoid constructions that render words, phrases, or clauses superfluous.” (In re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, 103.)
The district attorney claims this public safety consideration is not possible for inmates like Guevara because applying
Here, the issue is not whether the electorate intended to have mini-trials on disqualifying factors under
I also disagree with the district attorney‘s argument, adopted by my colleagues, that applying
Conclusion
I recognize that the trial court in 2015 found that Guevara posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety when it denied his
I also recognize that my reading of
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
BALTODANO, J.
Von T. Nguyen Deroian, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
John T. Savrnoch, District Attorney, and Marguerite Clipper Charles, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner.
Gregory D. Totten for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Tracy Macuga, Public Defender, and Laura Arnold, Deputy Public Defender, for Real Party in Interest.
Michael S. Romano for Three Strikes Project, David Mills, George Gascón, Heidi Rummel and Michael Vitiello as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri, Theresa A. Patterson, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Christopher G. Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Attorney General as Amicus Curiae, upon the request of the Court of Appeal.