People v. Valdez
Decision Date | 20 April 2017 |
Docket Number | C077882 |
Citation | 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 437,10 Cal.App.5th 1338 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Emigdio VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Gregory R. Ellis, Retained Counsel for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez, Caely E. Fallini, Jaime A. Scheidegger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2001, defendant was convicted of possession of a sharp instrument in prison (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a) )1 and assault by an inmate by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 4501). The trial court found true three prior strike allegations. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 25 years to life on each count. In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Valdez (May 13, 2003, C038924) [nonpub. opn.] slip opn. at pp. 1-11, 2003 WL 21061351 (Slip Opn. ).)
Defendant appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for recall of sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (enacted by Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012); §§ 667, 1170.12, 1170.126 (Proposition 36 or the Act)). As to each conviction, defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court was not authorized to make findings of fact and the People were required to plead and prove any disqualifying facts in the prosecution of his commitment offense; (2) substantial evidence did not support the trial court's determinations regarding his ineligibility; and (3) the trial court employed the wrong standard of proof, in that it should have applied the "clear and convincing evidence" standard rather than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Defendant also asserts that, if we conclude that he is eligible for resentencing on one conviction but ineligible on the other, he should be resentenced on the eligible offense.
In the published part of this opinion we conclude there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court's determination that defendant was "armed" with the sharp instrument in prison. Defendant had the weapon available for use while he possessed it in his cell and the fact that the weapon was seized from his cell by correctional officers while defendant was away taking a shower does not make defendant eligible for resentencing under Proposition 36. Possession of a weapon can be a continuing offense. Consequently, a person is armed with a weapon for purposes of the Proposition 36 resentencing exception if the evidence from the record of conviction establishes that he or she was present with the weapon and had it available for use at any time he or she had actual or constructive possession of it within the time period for which the defendant was charged and convicted.
In the unpublished parts of this opinion, we discuss and reject defendant's other contentions.
We affirm.
Possession of a Sharp Instrument in Prison (§ 4502 )
(Slip Opn., supra , at pp. 2-3, fn. omitted.) We set forth additional facts regarding this offense in our discussion, post .
Assault by Inmate by Means Likely to Cause Great Bodily Injury (§ 4501)
In 2014, defendant filed a petition for recall of his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126 which is part of the Act. Defendant asserted that, under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1), his convictions of possession of a sharp instrument while in prison (§ 4502, subd. (a) ) and assault by a prisoner by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 4501) were neither serious felonies within the meaning of section 1192.7, nor violent felonies within the meaning of section 667.5, and therefore these convictions did not render him ineligible for resentencing under the Act. Defendant also asserted that, in violating sections 4501 and 4502, subdivision (a), he was not armed with a firearm or deadly weapon, did not use a firearm or deadly weapon, and he did not intend to cause great bodily injury to another person within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iii), and therefore he was not ineligible for resentencing under the Act. (§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(2).) Defendant further asserted that these convictions did not otherwise render him ineligible for relief. Thus, according to defendant, he satisfied all of the criteria for resentencing under the Act, and requested that the trial court resentence him as a second strike offender.
The trial court rejected each of defendant's contentions and denied the petition. We discuss post the court's factual findings concerning each conviction and its determination of resentencing ineligibility based on those findings.
The trial court also rejected defendant's contention that, if it were to make findings of fact relevant to issues, it would violate the mandate of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 that findings of fact that may result in an increase in punishment must be made by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ruled that Apprendi does not apply to section 1170.126 resentencing proceedings because resentencing pursuant to that section would constitute a downward departure from a previously imposed sentence, and there is no requirement that disqualifying factors must have previously been pleaded and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial court also ruled that its conclusion as to either conviction rendered defendant ineligible for resentencing under the Act. In this regard, the trial court followed those cases which had concluded that a defendant is ineligible for resentencing under the Act if any of the defendant's current convictions render him or her ineligible, although the court noted that the issue was pending before our high court at the time.3
Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant's petition for resentencing.
(Johnson, supra , 61 Cal.4th at pp. 680-681, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 794, 352 P.3d 366.)
"The Act's exceptions to the new sentencing provisions relate to a defendant's current offense and prior offenses." (Johnson, supra , 61 Cal.4th at p. 681, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 794, 352 P.3d 366.) These exceptions are set forth in sections 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(C). (Johnson , at p. 681, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 794, 352 P.3d 366.)
The Act addressed both prospective sentencing and retrospective resentencing. This case involves retrospective resentencing. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baumer v. Diaz
...had actual or constructive possession of it within the time period for which the defendant was charged and convicted" (People v. Valdez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1338, 1342.) By pleading no contest to the weapon-related charges, Baumer effectively pleaded guilty (Pen. Code, § 1016) and admitted......
-
People v. Byers
...some indication of ready access in close temporal proximity to the discovery of the offense." ( People v. Valdez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1338, 1361, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 437 (dis. opn. of Duarte, J.).) "[N]ot every commitment offense for unlawful possession of a gun necessarily involves being arme......
-
People v. Kook, B269823
...court embraced the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof." (People v. Newman, supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at p. 728; see People v. Valdez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1338, 1346, review granted Aug. 9, 2017, S242240.6 Until the Supreme Court decides this issue, we believe the appropriate standard t......
-
People v. Chism
...1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii) (hereinafter subdivision (iii)); Johnson, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 682; People v. Valdez (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1338, 1345 (Valdez); People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1028-1029 (Osuna); People v. Brimmer (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 782, 791-793 (Brimmer).) ......