SEE DISSENTING OPINION

Filed 2/5/15

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY JAMES RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

F067805

(Super. Ct. No. MCR04652)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Mitchell C. 

Rigby, Judge.

Sylvia Whatley Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Jennifer 

M. Poe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, only the 

Introduction, part III of the Discussion, and the Disposition are certified for publication. 
2.

INTRODUCTION

The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (hereafter Proposition 36 or the Act) 

created a postconviction release proceeding for third strike offenders serving 

indeterminate life sentences for crimes that are not serious or violent felonies. If such an

inmate meets the criteria enumerated in Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (e), he 

or she will be resentenced as a second strike offender unless the court determines such

resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.1 (§ 1170.126, 

subd. (f); People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 168.) 

After the Act went into effect, Timothy James Rodriguez (defendant), an inmate 

serving a term of 25 years to life in prison following conviction of a felony that was not 

violent (as defined by § 667.5, subd. (c)) or serious (as defined by § 1192.7, subd. (c)), 

filed a petition for resentencing under the Act. The trial court found defendant was “not 

disqualified from resentencing,” but declined to resentence him due to the risk of danger 

to public safety.

In the published portion of this opinion, we hold the court did not err by failing to 

appoint an expert on the issue of current dangerousness. In the unpublished portion, we 

conclude the trial court did not use the wrong legal standard, misallocate the burden of 

proof, or abuse its discretion by denying the petition. We also conclude recently enacted 

section 1170.18, subdivision (c) does not modify section 1170.126, subdivision (f). We

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY*

On February 22, 2000, defendant was stopped by a Madera law enforcement 

officer because he was wearing clothing that matched the description of that worn by an 

attempted robbery suspect officers were trying to locate. Shortly after, defendant was 

 

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

* See footnote, ante, page 1.
3.

taken into custody on unrelated charges. He was found to have five individually wrapped 

plastic bags of heroin in his belongings. While being booked into jail, he spontaneously 

stated he had been making a delivery. After being advised of and waiving his 

constitutional rights, he explained he was a heroin user who purchased heroin in packages 

to sell to continue supporting his drug habit. On September 8, 2000, defendant pled 

guilty to possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and admitted having 

two prior strike convictions. On November 9, 2000, he was sentenced to 25 years to life 

in prison. 

On November 13, 2012, defendant filed a petition to recall his sentence and be 

resentenced pursuant to the Act. He represented he (1) was statutorily eligible for such 

relief; (2) had a strike record consisting of a 1985 conviction for robbery (in which he 

handed the clerk a note to complete the crime and which did not involve a weapon) and a 

1992 conviction for first degree burglary; (3) was 59 years old; (4) had not incurred any 

disciplinary rule infractions since entering the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation in November 2000; (5) had availed himself of academic 

programs and earned his GED in November 2005; (6) had been actively participating in 

Narcotics Anonymous (NA) since October 2006; and (7) had been actively participating 

in Victim Awareness Offender’s Program (VAOP) since February 2012.2 With respect 

to postrelease plans, defendant stated he had no definite plans for residency, but 

anticipated transitional housing acceptance letters from various programs throughout 

California. If none were forthcoming, he expected to reside at the Madera Rescue 

Mission until he could arrange to relocate to Fresno, where he intended to enroll in a 

truck driving school. Defendant conceded his criminal history was extensive, but noted

 

2 Defendant submitted numerous favorable “chronos” and other documents in 

support of his claims. 
4.

his crimes were primarily property crimes and his criminal history was attributable to his 

drug use, which he had now addressed.

The People opposed the petition. They implicitly conceded defendant was not 

disqualified from resentencing under the Act, but argued he should not be resentenced 

because doing so would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The 

People pointed to defendant’s eight felony and 11 misdemeanor convictions dating back 

to 1972; the fact one of his strike priors was a robbery, which by its nature was violent;3

the length and number of his prior prison commitments and number of parole violations; 

the fact that, although the strike offenses were from 1985 and 1992, defendant led a 

continuous life of crime before and after those convictions; and the uncertainty of 

defendant’s parole plans. The People acknowledged defendant’s lack of prison 

disciplinary record and the fact he had completed numerous vocational/job training, 

substance abuse, and academic classes, and agreed he had made commendable gains 

while in prison. They argued, however, that his “abysmal” criminal record and over 20 

years of using drugs and stealing could not be overlooked; moreover, he had never 

demonstrated an ability to be law abiding or employed. They asserted he was ill 

equipped to return to society, had no real parole plan, would be unable to support himself, 

and was likely to reoffend if released.

Defendant responded by writing a letter to the court in which he apologized for his 

past criminal conduct. He again pointed to his lack of in-prison disciplinary record and 

participation in self-help groups such as NA. He also detailed steps he intended to take to 

obtain housing and employment, should he be released. In his formal response, he 

argued he did not have a long or consistent history of violence, and pointed to his record 

 

3 Due to the age of the convictions, the People did not have any information about 

the circumstances of the prior strike cases. 
5.

of rehabilitation. He asserted there were insufficient facts for the court to find he posed 

an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

The petition was heard on August 2, 2013.4 The court invited defense counsel to 

be heard first. When counsel said everything had been presented in the moving papers 

and he would prefer to respond to whatever the People said unless there was something 

the court needed to have addressed, the court confirmed it was to consider the original 

petition and exhibits prepared by defendant before counsel was appointed, together with 

the defense’s response and appended documents. Counsel then argued that although 

defendant had a lengthy prior record, this was “somewhat natural” for a third strike 

offender, and defendant’s serious and/or violent crimes occurred some time ago. Counsel 

emphasized defendant had been a model prisoner with no disciplinary violations, and had 

done many things toward rehabilitation. Counsel also noted defendant had been assessed 

by the prison itself as being a low risk to reoffend. Counsel argued defendant had done 

everything he could possibly do, and the People had not presented any evidence to show 

he was a current risk of danger to the public safety. 

Asked by the court whether “risk of danger to the public safety” was limited to 

physical safety, as in violent crimes, or included safety from having other property crimes 

perpetrated against the public, defense counsel argued “dangerousness” and “risk” were 

key. He analogized the situation to parole cases dealing with life prisoners, and noted 

those cases involved murderers and so were concerned with whether those prisoners were 

going to commit such crimes again. Counsel argued risk of danger and public safety 

meant more than committing petty theft or second degree burglary, and argued concern 

with risk of commission of a violent crime would be in line with the Act’s amendments to 

the three strikes law, because the third strike now had to be a serious or violent felony. 

 

4 The judge who imposed defendant’s third strike sentence was no longer on the 

bench, so the matter was heard by a different judge. (See § 1170.126, subd. (j).)
6.

The prosecutor acknowledged defendant had no disciplinary record while in prison 

and a good record of attendance in rehabilitation programs. He argued there was a 

difference, however, between one’s behavior in a structured setting such as prison and 

how one behaves outside of prison. He asserted defendant’s criminal history showed that 

defendant had been sent to prison many times before, and each time he got out, he 

committed new crimes. The prosecutor argued the term “public safety” encompassed the 

safety of one’s belongings, but in defendant’s case, there was additionally an escalation 

in how property was obtained. The prosecutor argued that between 1972, when 

defendant was 19 years old, and 2000, defendant was in prison or in jail or violating some 

law. The prosecutor also argued defendant’s parole plans (or lack thereof) were relevant, 

and he expressed concern over releasing an individual who had committed crimes over 

decades, just because he behaved in prison. 

The court asked defense counsel to address the fact defendant seemed to have a 

problem complying with the law when not in custody. Counsel responded that the three 

strikes law was a criminal statute, and if everyone’s petition for resentencing was going 

to be denied because they committed serious and violent crimes, then resentencing should 

not be included in the law. Thus, the standard was not denial based just on the prior 

criminal record. Counsel acknowledged the prior record was a relevant factor, but argued 

the court had to consider the totality of the picture. He emphasized defendant’s good 

behavior during his time in custody, and argued it was easy to get “written up” for 

something in prison, yet defendant had no disciplinary chronos. Counsel argued 

defendant’s prior record was not evidence defendant was currently a danger. As for 

parole plans, counsel stated he was familiar with Madera Rescue Mission and that, while 

they would not conclusively accept defendant until he was out of custody and had 

interviewed with them, defendant would be a suitable candidate for their program. 

Counsel pointed out defendant had also obtained information for workforce programs and 

other agencies, and that he had put time and effort into doing that on his own while still 
7.

in prison. The court then confirmed directly with defendant that enrollment in a specific 

truck driving school was still something he wanted to pursue. 

This ensued:

“[THE COURT:] I am directed by the terms of the Prop 36 

modification to the Three Strikes Law to consider criminal history 

including the types of crimes, the extent of injuries to the victims, the 

length of prior prison commitments, and the remoteness of crimes, and I do 

have those issues in mind. So I can’t just start with the time when he went 

into custody and his conduct since then nor can I just limit it to the time 

before he got into custody.

“Looking at his in custody time, I don’t think that, on the face of it, I 

would be asking more of [defendant]. He ... has behaved himself, he has 

followed the rules as far as I can see. I don’t have any reason to believe 

otherwise. He has done the program, he’s done the Narcotics Anonymous 

program there, he obtained his GED certificate in 2005, he did go through 

the Victim Awareness Offenders Program, the VAOP program.

“And then in the annual review ..., it indicates that no serious 

disciplinary action during his time there. So I think he has done well to the 

extent that he could do well during his time in custody.

“He has a history, as I count them of eleven misdemeanors and the 

eight felonies, and that includes juvenile actions as well. It appears to me 

that ... [defendant] has had difficulty in complying with the rules.

“[Defense counsel] has indicated that it’s not easy to comply with 

the rules while in custody, and I understand that and appreciate that.

“[Defense counsel] also pointed out that in order to reintegrate into 

society, it’s not easy to do that either. And it appears to me that [defendant] 

has not been, by his own history here, successful in that regard. I don’t 

have any appreciable periods of time when he’s been without a criminal 

conviction.

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, ... I believe he was free of 

custody from 1979 to 1984.

“THE COURT: Was he in custody during that period of time?

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, he was out of custody.
8.

“THE DEFENDANT: I was employed, your Honor. I have a Social 

Security statement from 2006 which shows I was employed those years, in 

1979 to early 1984.

“THE COURT: Okay. So approximately a 5-year period. All right. 

Then, let me go back there just a moment. I want to look at the records on 

that. All right. [¶] Any comment in that regard by the People? [¶] ... [¶]

“[PROSECUTOR]: I’ll submit on that, your Honor. I don’t show 

any record that he was in custody at that time. [¶] ... [¶]

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I’m sorry, your Honor, the last thing I 

want to note. Before his last yearly review on his controlled substance, he 

was classified as a low risk on that.

“THE COURT: All right. Thank you. And I think you mentioned 

that .... [¶] And as mentioned by the People, we’ve seen an escalation 

even without crime during that period 1979 to 1984, the fact that we have 

the felony first degree burglary in 1992.

“So I’m not going to find that he does not present a danger to 

reoffend or to present a danger to society or to safety of the public. I find 

that there is a reasonable risk of danger if he would be released on that 

basis.

“As noted by the People, there has been an escalation in the type of 

crime .... [¶] ... And looking at whether the circumstances of his 

commitment offenses were considered, I have considered those. And his 

offenses are of concern because it has escalated.

“If it was just a crime, not serious or violent, we wouldn’t be here in 

the first place but he’s got a consistent series of crimes during the time he’s 

out. The greatest period of which he was without crime was the one that 

was just mentioned by the defense. So I’m not ordering that he be 

resentenced.” 

Defense counsel then sought clarification whether the court interpreted 

“unreasonable risk to the public safety” to mean a risk that defendant commit any crime, 

or serious or violent crimes. The court responded: “My interpretation is that to the 

extent that he’s committing any crime, it’s something that I consider to whether — to the 

issue whether he would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public safety.” When 

counsel suggested the court was putting a great deal more weight on defendant’s prior 
9.

record than on his in-custody record, the court stated: “Well, I don’t know how you want 

to quantify that, Counsel. I’m considering both his time in custody ... and then his 

history in crimes committed .... So upon balance, it appears to me that it would be an 

unreasonable risk to the danger to the public safety for the resentencing.” When counsel 

asked whether the court was “not giving any weight to the prison’s evaluation — the

people that know [defendant] the best, that they consider him a low risk to reoffend,” the 

court responded it had considered that as well.

DISCUSSION

Defendant says he is entitled to a remand for reconsideration of his petition, 

because the sentencing court (1) applied the wrong legal standard; (2) misallocated the 

burden of proof; (3) abused its discretion in considering the evidence, because it engaged 

in unfounded speculation without obtaining an expert evaluation; and (4) abused its 

discretion by denying relief based solely on defendant’s remote history of recidivism. In 

conjunction with the last claim, defendant says the court’s ruling is not supported by 

sufficient evidence, because his remote recidivist behavior did not preponderate over the 

extensive evidence of his more recent exemplary behavior and accomplishments. We 

disagree that remand is required.

I

*

STANDARD OF PROOF

In order to be eligible for resentencing as a second strike offender under the Act, 

the inmate petitioner must satisfy the three criteria set out in subdivision (e) of 

section 1170.126.

5

 (People v. Superior Court (Martinez) (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 979, 

 

* See footnote, ante, page 1.

5 “An inmate is eligible for resentencing if: [¶] (1) The inmate is serving an 

indeterminate term of life imprisonment imposed pursuant to paragraph (2) of 

subdivision (e) of Section 667 or subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12 for a conviction of a 

felony or felonies that are not defined as serious and/or violent felonies by subdivision (c) 
10.

989.) If the inmate satisfies all three criteria, as did defendant, he or she “shall be 

resentenced [as a second strike offender] unless the court, in its discretion, determines 

that resentencing the [inmate] would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public 

safety.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) In exercising this discretion, “the court may consider: 

[¶] (1) The [inmate’s] criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes 

committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and 

the remoteness of the crimes; [¶] (2) The [inmate’s] disciplinary record and record of 

rehabilitation while incarcerated; and [¶] (3) Any other evidence the court, within its 

discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in 

an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (Id., subd. (g).)

The plain language of subdivisions (f) and (g) of section 1170.126 calls for an 

exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion. “‘Discretion is the power to make the 

decision, one way or the other.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 

375.) “Where, as here, a discretionary power is statutorily vested in the trial court, its 

exercise of that discretion ‘must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing that the 

court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that 

resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. 

Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124-1125; see People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 

148, 162 [abuse-of-discretion review asks whether ruling in question falls outside bounds 

of reason under applicable law and relevant facts].)

 

of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7. [¶] (2) The inmate’s current 

sentence was not imposed for any of the offenses appearing in clauses (i) to (iii), 

inclusive, of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 or 

clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of 

Section 1170.12. [¶] (3) The inmate has no prior convictions for any of the offenses 

appearing in clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of 

Section 667 or clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of 

Section 1170.12.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (e).)
11.

“In reviewing for abuse of discretion, we are guided by two 

fundamental precepts. First, ‘“[t]he burden is on the party attacking the 

sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or 

arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is 

presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its 

discretionary determination ... will not be set aside on review.”’ [Citation.] 

Second, a ‘“decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people 

might disagree. ‘An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted 

in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.’”’ 

[Citation.] Taken together, these precepts establish that a trial court does 

not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that 

no reasonable person could agree with it.” (People v. Carmony, supra, 33 

Cal.4th at pp. 376-377.)

“Because ‘all discretionary authority is contextual’ [citation], we cannot determine 

whether a trial court has acted irrationally or arbitrarily ... without considering the legal 

principles and policies that should have guided the court’s actions.” (People v. Carmony, 

supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 377.) “An abuse of discretion is shown when the trial court 

applies the wrong legal standard. [Citation.]” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior 

Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.)

Defendant suggests that because a trial court’s determination whether to 

resentence an eligible inmate under the Act is akin to the determination whether a 

prisoner serving a life term should be released on parole, “perhaps de novo review is 

appropriate.” In such parole cases, the governing statutes and regulations give parole 

applicants “an expectation that they will be granted parole unless the [parole authority] 

finds, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are unsuitable for parole in light of the 

circumstances specified by statute and by regulation.’ [Citation.]” (In re Shaputis (2008) 

44 Cal.4th 1241, 1258.) Article V, section 8, subdivision (b) of the California 

Constitution gives the Governor the power to review the parole authority’s decision. 

“Although ‘the Governor’s decision must be based upon the same factors that restrict the 

[parole authority] in rendering its parole decision’ [citation], the Governor undertakes an 

independent, de novo review of the inmate’s suitability for parole. [Citation.]” 
12.

(Shaputis, supra, at p. 1258.) Appellate review is then limited to “the highly deferential 

‘some evidence’ standard ....” (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1190.) 

“[B]ecause the core statutory determination entrusted to the [parole authority] and the 

Governor is whether the inmate poses a current threat to public safety, the standard of 

review properly is characterized as whether ‘some evidence’ supports the conclusion that 

the inmate is unsuitable for parole because he or she currently is dangerous.” (Id. at 

p. 1191.)

Defendant fails to convince us a decision whether to resentence under the Act is 

sufficiently similar to a decision by the parole authority so as to mandate our independent 

review as if we were in a position similar to the Governor. The California Constitution 

gives the state’s executive specific powers of review over parole decisions. (Cal. Const., 

art. V, § 8, subd. (b).) At the time that constitutional provision was adopted, courts 

applied the “some evidence” test directly to the decisions of the parole authority. (In re 

Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 626.) In light of the “fundamental[] differen[ce]” 

between the Governor’s power and that of the parole authority (In re Masoner (2009) 172 

Cal.App.4th 1098, 1106, disapproved on another ground in In re Prather (2010) 50 

Cal.4th 238, 252-253), even if we viewed a resentencing decision under the Act as being 

similar to the parole authority’s determination whether to grant parole, we would not 

view the role of an appellate court as similar to that of the Governor.

Anticipating we might so conclude, defendant points to the holding of Division 

Three of the Second District Court of Appeal, that where a court’s discretion under 

section 1170.126, subdivision (f) is concerned, the People bear the burden of proving 

“dangerousness” by a preponderance of the evidence. (People v. Superior Court 

(Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1301-1305 & fn. 25 (Kaulick); see Evid. Code, 

§ 115.) That court determined this is so — and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 

466 (Apprendi) and its progeny do not apply — because “dangerousness is not a factor 

which enhances the sentence imposed when a defendant is resentenced under the Act; 
13.

instead, dangerousness is a hurdle which must be crossed in order for a defendant to be 

resentenced at all.” (Kaulick, supra, at p. 1303.)

Based on the foregoing, defendant appears to reason that because the People bear 

the burden of proving “dangerousness” by a preponderance of the evidence, we must

employ the substantial evidence standard in reviewing a trial court’s denial of a 

resentencing petition. The Attorney General disagrees and argues that under the clear 

language of section 1170.126, we review for abuse of discretion. The Attorney General 

concludes: “[T]he trial court has discretion to determine an inmate’s risk of danger to 

public safety based on evidence the court deems relevant. And just like other sentencing 

decisions, the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in the section 1170.126 context 

should be supported by stated factors and reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” 

We agree we review a trial court’s ultimate decision whether to resentence an 

inmate under the Act — its determination whether “resentencing the petitioner would 

pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” (§ 1170.126, subd. (f)) — for abuse 

of discretion. If there is no evidence in the record to support the decision, the decision 

constitutes an abuse of discretion. (See In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 

1066.) As the Attorney General’s reference to the trial court’s determination being based 

on evidence and supported by stated factors shows, the questions arise which party must 

produce such evidence, and to what degree of certainty, and what level of support —

what standard of proof — is required for a trial court to rely on such evidence or factors? 

(See People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 476.)

We agree with Kaulick that the applicable standard is preponderance of the 

evidence.6 This does not, however, mean the trial court must apply that standard in

 

6 We have previously discussed Kaulick in the context of the initial determination 

whether an inmate is eligible for resentencing under the Act. (People v. Blakely (2014) 

225 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1058, 1060-1061; People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020, 

1033, 1039-1040.) Nothing we say here should be taken as disagreement with or 
14.

making its ultimate determination whether to resentence a petitioner, or we must review 

that determination for substantial evidence.

7 Nor does it mean evidence of 

dangerousness must preponderate over evidence of rehabilitation for resentencing to be 

denied. Instead, considering the language of subdivisions (f) and (g) of section 1170.126, 

we conclude it means the People have the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of 

the evidence, facts from which a determination resentencing the petitioner would pose an 

unreasonable risk of danger to public safety can reasonably be made.

8

 Stated another 

way, evidence showing a petitioner poses a risk of danger to public safety must be proven 

by the People by a preponderance. The reasons a trial court finds resentencing would 

pose an unreasonable risk of danger, or its weighing of evidence showing dangerousness

versus evidence showing rehabilitation, lie within the court’s discretion. The ultimate 

determination that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger is a 

discretionary one. While the determination must be supported by record evidence 

established by a preponderance, the trial court need not itself find an unreasonable risk of 

 

modification of those opinions. We deal here with a different aspect of the retrospective 

portion of the Act and a subject not before us in our prior cases.

7 The substantial evidence test applies to an appellate court’s review of findings 

made under the preponderance of the evidence standard. (People v. Wong (2010) 186 

Cal.App.4th 1433, 1444.) Under that test, the appellate court reviews the record in the 

light most favorable to the challenged finding, to determine whether it discloses evidence 

that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could 

make the finding by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court “resolve[s] all 

conflicts in the evidence and questions of credibility in favor of the [finding], and ... 

indulge[s] every reasonable inference the [trier of fact] could draw from the evidence. 

[Citation.]” (Ibid.)

8 We do not interpret the Attorney General’s argument as taking serious issue with 

the notion that whatever burden exists is allocated to the prosecution. Courts and parties 

have assumed the burden is on the People (e.g., People v. Flores (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 

1070, 1075; Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1301, fn. 25), and such allocation is in 

harmony with the language of section 1170.126, subdivision (f) that an eligible petitioner

“shall be resentenced ... unless” the court makes the required determination.
15.

danger by a preponderance of the evidence. (See In re Robert L., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th 

at pp. 1065-1067 [discussing abuse of discretion and preponderance of the evidence 

standards].)

Such an interpretation is consistent with California’s noncapital sentencing 

scheme.

9

 Under the determinate sentencing law (DSL) as it existed prior to Cunningham 

v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham), “three terms of imprisonment [were] 

specified by statute for most offenses. The trial court’s discretion in selecting among 

[those] options [was] limited by section 1170, subdivision (b), which direct[ed] that ‘the 

court shall order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in 

aggravation or mitigation of the crime.’” (People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 808, 

fn. omitted.) Trial courts had “broad discretion” to impose the lower or upper term 

instead of the middle term of imprisonment (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 349), 

and generally were required by the statutes and sentencing rules to state reasons for their 

discretionary sentencing choices (ibid.). Such reasons had to be “supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence in the record” and reasonably related to the particular 

sentencing determination. (Ibid.; see former Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.420(b).) Even 

after the DSL was reformed and amended in response to Cunningham, so as to eliminate 

judicial factfinding in selection of the appropriate term when three possible prison terms 

are specified by statute, establishment of facts by a preponderance of the evidence 

remains necessary with respect to certain discretionary sentencing decisions. (See In re 

Coley (2012) 55 Cal.4th 524, 557-558.)10

 

9 The determination of the appropriate penalty in a capital case “‘is “essentially 

moral and normative ..., and therefore ... there is no burden of proof or burden of 

persuasion. [Citation.]” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. McKinzie (2012) 54 

Cal.4th 1302, 1362.)

10 After Cunningham concluded the DSL violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment

right to a jury trial (Cunningham, supra, 549 U.S. at p. 281), the Legislature amended 

section 1170 so that now “(1) the middle term is no longer the presumptive term absent 
16.

The Attorney General points to People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 850-

851, in which the California Supreme Court stated that, in making its discretionary 

sentencing choices post-Cunningham, “the trial court need only ‘state [its] reasons’ 

[citation]; it is not required to identify aggravating and mitigating factors, apply a 

preponderance of the evidence standard, or specify the ‘ultimate facts’ that ‘justify[] the 

term selected.’ [Citations.] Rather, the court must ‘state in simple language the primary 

factor or factors that support the exercise of discretion.’ [Citation.]” (Italics added.)

The trial court’s ultimate determination when considering a petition for 

resentencing under section 1170.126 is analogous to an evaluation of the relative weight 

of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Such an evaluation “is not equivalent to a 

factual finding.” (People v. Black, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 814, fn. 4.) It follows, then, 

that the trial court need not apply a preponderance of the evidence standard, in that it 

need not find resentencing the petitioner would, more likely than not, pose an 

unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (See Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1305, fn. 28 [preponderance standard means “‘more likely than not’”].)

Kaulick found the prosecution bears the burden of establishing “dangerousness” 

by a preponderance of the evidence against a claim the Apprendi line of cases requires 

proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1301-1302.) 

As a result, it had no real occasion to address the interplay between the burden of proof 

and the trial court’s exercise of discretion as that issue is presented here, or to clarify

whether the prosecution is required to establish “dangerousness” in the sense of facts

upon which the trial court may base the ultimate determination resentencing a petitioner 

 

aggravating or mitigating facts found by the trial judge; and (2) a trial judge has the 

discretion to impose an upper, middle or lower term based on reasons he or she states.” 

(People v. Wilson (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 988, 992.) Subdivision (b) of section 1170 

states the court “shall select the term which, in the court’s discretion, best serves the 

interests of justice.”
17.

would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, or in the sense of establishing 

that determination itself. Nevertheless, we believe it supports our interpretation. Kaulick

stated, in part: “The maximum sentence to which Kaulick, and those similarly situated to 

him, is subject was, and shall always be, the indeterminate life term to which he was 

originally sentenced. While [the Act] presents him with an opportunity to be resentenced 

to a lesser term, unless certain facts are established, he is nonetheless still subject to the 

third strike sentence based on the facts established at the time he was originally 

sentenced. As such, a court’s discretionary decision to decline to modify the sentence in 

his favor can be based on any otherwise appropriate factor (i.e., dangerousness), and 

such factor need not be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.” (Id. 

at p. 1303, italics added.) The court further stated: “[I]t is the general rule in California 

that once a defendant is eligible for an increased penalty, the trial court, in exercising its 

discretion to impose that penalty, may rely on factors established by a preponderance of 

the evidence. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1305, italics added.)

To summarize, a trial court need not determine, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that resentencing a petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to 

public safety before it can properly deny a petition for resentencing under the Act. Nor is 

the court’s ultimate determination subject to substantial evidence review. Rather, its 

finding will be upheld if it does not constitute an abuse of discretion, i.e., if it falls within 

“the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.]” (People 

v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72.) The facts or evidence upon which the court’s 

finding of unreasonable risk is based must be proven by the People by a preponderance of 

the evidence, however, and are themselves subject to our review for substantial evidence. 

If a factor (for example, that the petitioner recently committed a battery, is violent due to 

repeated instances of mutual combat, etc.) is not established by a preponderance of the 

evidence, it cannot form the basis for a finding of unreasonable risk. (See People v. Cluff 

(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 [trial court abuses its discretion when factual findings 
18.

critical to decision find no support in record]; cf. People v. Read (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 

685, 689-691 [where trial court erroneously determined defendant was statutorily 

ineligible for probation, reviewing court was required to determine whether trial court 

gave sufficient other reasons, supported by facts of case, for probation denial].)

II*

ALLOCATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF

Based on the fact the trial court gave defense counsel the first and last 

opportunities to be heard and the way in which it phrased its ruling, defendant contends 

the court “appears” to have incorrectly allocated the burden of proof to defendant, to 

prove he did not pose a risk of danger to public safety. This, defendant says, was an 

abuse of discretion.

“As a general rule, we presume that the trial court has properly followed 

established law. [Citations.] This presumption, however, does not apply ‘where the law 

in question was unclear or uncertain when the lower court acted.’ [Citation.]” (People v. 

Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 567.) Kaulick was decided slightly more than three months 

before the hearing on defendant’s petition. We presume the court was aware of that 

decision. Moreover, the People’s opposition to the petition, which the court clearly had 

received, stated the burden of proof as preponderance of the evidence. In his response to 

the People’s opposition, defendant argued there were “insufficient facts” to allow the 

court to find defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and argued 

the interests of justice would be served by resentencing him based on his rehabilitation 

record and “the lack of evidence” he posed an unreasonable risk to public safety. At the 

hearing, defendant argued the People had not presented any evidence to show he was 

currently a risk of danger to public safety. 

 

* See footnote, ante, page 1.
19.

In light of the totality of its comments and the argument before it, we conclude the 

trial court properly allocated the burden of proof to the People and determined, in an 

exercise of its discretion, that resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of 

danger to public safety.11

III

FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPERT EVALUATION

Defendant says resentencing him as a second strike offender would have released 

him on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). (See § 3451; People v. Tubbs (2014) 

230 Cal.App.4th 578, 585-586; People v. Espinoza (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 635, 637-

638.) Thus, he argues, the court was confronted with a situation similar to the decision 

whether to grant parole to a life prisoner (see § 3041); in that context, current 

psychological evaluations are generally most relevant to an assessment of current 

dangerousness (see In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1223-1224), and the court 

here erred by failing to enlist, sua sponte, the assistance of an expert. Defendant says the 

court abused its discretion by engaging in unfounded speculation concerning, and relying 

on its own nonexpert estimation of, defendant’s psychological state with respect to 

whether defendant was still prone to reoffending outside the custodial setting.

Defendant cites Evidence Code section 730 for the proposition an expert may be 

appointed by a court sua sponte for the purpose of obtaining an impartial expert 

opinion.12 (See Mercury Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1027, 

 

11 That the court gave defense counsel the first opportunity to be heard does not 

suggest otherwise. As defense counsel implicitly acknowledged at the hearing, defendant

was the moving party. 

12 Evidence Code section 730 provides, in relevant part: “When it appears to the 

court, at any time before or during the trial of an action, that expert evidence is or may be 

required by the court ..., the court on its own motion ... may appoint one or more experts 

to investigate, to render a report as may be ordered by the court, and to testify as an 
20.

1032.) That statute “does not authorize the appointment of experts after trial in 

connection with sentencing proceedings.” (People v. Stuckey (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 

898, 905; id. at p. 913.) Regardless of whether a proceeding under section 1170.126 is 

likened to a trial or is part of a sentencing proceeding, “a trial court has inherent power, 

independent of statute, to exercise its discretion and control over all proceedings relating 

to the litigation before it [citation],” including “the power to obtain evidence upon which 

the judgment of the court may rest [citation].” (Johnson v. Banducci (1963) 212 

Cal.App.2d 254, 260; see Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967.) 

Thus, it appears a court could appoint an expert, on its own motion, to conduct an 

evaluation concerning the risk of danger currently posed to public safety by an inmate 

seeking resentencing under the Act.

However, “[t]he decision on the need for the appointment of an expert lies within 

the discretion of the trial court and the trial court’s decision will not be set aside absent an 

abuse of that discretion. [Citations.]” (People v. Gaglione (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1291, 

1304, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 452 & 

People v. Levesque (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 530, 539; accord, People v. Vatelli (1971) 15 

Cal.App.3d 54, 61; see In re Eric A. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1394, fn. 4.) Whatever 

the similarities between the decisions whether to resentence under the Act and to grant 

parole to an inmate serving a life term, appointment of an expert did not fall outside the 

bounds of reason in this case. The question before the court was whether resentencing 

defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Given the 

information already before the court — all of which the court considered — the court 

reasonably could make the required determination itself, without the input of an expert. 

As has been stated in the context of a claim the word “unreasonable” is impermissibly 

 

expert at the trial of the action relative to the fact or matter as to which the expert 

evidence is or may be required.”
21.

vague, “Surely a superior court judge is capable of exercising discretion, justly applying 

the public safety exception, and determining whether a lesser sentence would pose an 

unreasonable risk of harm to the public safety. [Citation.]” (People v. Flores, supra, 227 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1075.)13

IV*

DENIAL OF PETITION

Next, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying the 

petition. He says the court denied relief based solely on defendant’s remote history of 

recidivism and failed to apply the preponderance of the evidence standard, and the order 

is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence because the evidence of defendant’s 

remote recidivist behavior did not preponderate over the “significant and extensive” 

evidence of his exemplary current and recent behavior.

As we previously explained, the trial court was not required to apply the 

preponderance of the evidence standard, nor was evidence of risk of danger required to 

preponderate over evidence of rehabilitation in order for resentencing to be denied. The 

People met their burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts from which 

the trial court reasonably could find resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable 

 

13 In re Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1181, does not hold to the contrary. In that 

case, the Governor reversed a parole grant in part based on negative language found in 

early psychiatric evaluations of the inmate that suggested the inmate’s release would pose 

an unreasonable risk of danger to the public. (Id. at pp. 1190, 1223.) The California 

Supreme Court rejected the Governor’s conclusion, stating: “[T]he passage of time is 

highly probative to the determination before us, and reliance upon outdated psychological 

reports — clearly contradicted by [the inmate’s] successful participation in years of 

intensive therapy, a long series of reports declaring [the inmate] to be free of 

psychological problems and no longer a threat to public safety, and [the inmate’s] own 

insight into her participation in this crime — does not supply some evidence justifying 

the Governor’s conclusion that [the inmate] continues to pose a threat to public safety.” 

(Id. at p. 1224.)

* See footnote, ante, page 1.
22.

risk of danger to public safety. The trial court gave due consideration to all the 

information before it, and so determined.

14

 Defendant’s record, including the fact he 

suffered numerous convictions over a long period of time and into his late 40’s; his 

extensive number of parole violations for which he was returned to prison; and his 

inability to remain crime- or violation-free for any appreciable period of time;

15

 

14 The trial court correctly framed the pertinent issue as an inquiry into the risk of 

recidivism in general, rather than the likelihood of future violence. Words and phrases 

used in the Penal Code “must be construed according to the context and the approved 

usage of the language ....” (§ 7, subd. 16.) In interpreting a ballot initiative, we afford 

the words used their ordinary and usual meaning. (People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 

796.) “[S]afety” has been variously defined as “the condition of being safe: freedom 

from exposure to danger: exemption from hurt, injury or loss” (Webster’s 3d New 

Internat. Dict. (1986) p. 1998) and “[t]he condition of being safe; freedom from danger, 

risk, or injury” (American Heritage Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) p. 1084). That a crime (or 

criminal) can constitute a danger to public safety without being violent is too obvious to 

dispute (see, e.g., People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 355; People v. Villalobos 

(2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 310, 317) and is recognized both by the three strikes law’s 

inclusion as a strike, by reference to section 1192.7, subdivision (c)’s definition of a 

“serious felony,” any first degree burglary, furnishing certain drugs to a minor, and grand 

theft involving a firearm (§§ 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, 

subd. (c)(18), (24) & (26)), and by section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(2)’s disqualification 

from eligibility for resentencing persons convicted of certain narcotics offenses (see 

§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(i), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(i)). Although the ballot materials 

concerning Proposition 36 focused on violent criminals, uncodified section 7 of the Act 

provides: “This act is an exercise of the public power of the people of the State of 

California for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of 

California, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate those purposes.” (Italics 

omitted.) To condition resentencing denials upon the likelihood of future violence would 

run contrary to the language of section 1170.126, subdivision (f) and voters’ intent, and 

would not effectuate the purposes of the Act.

15 At the hearing, defendant represented, and the trial court accepted, that defendant

remained free of custody from 1979 to 1984, during which time he was employed. The 

probation officer’s report prepared in conjunction with the section 1170.126 hearing 

showed, however, that defendant was convicted of three misdemeanors, for which he 

received some jail time, and an offense for which he received summary probation and 

community service, during that period. Moreover, he committed the robbery that 

constituted one of his strike priors in late 1984. 
23.

reasonably supports the conclusion — even in light of a perfect prison behavior record —

that, although defendant thrives in prison, he does the opposite when released.16 

Accordingly, the trial court’s ruling fell within the bounds of reason.

V*

SECTION 1170.18, SUBDIVISION (C)

On November 4, 2014, voters enacted Proposition 47, “the Safe Neighborhoods 

and Schools Act” (hereafter Proposition 47). It went into effect the next day. (Cal. 

Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) Insofar as is pertinent here, Proposition 47 renders 

misdemeanors certain drug- and theft-related offenses that previously were felonies or 

“wobblers,” unless they were committed by certain ineligible defendants. Proposition 47 

also created a new resentencing provision — section 1170.18 — by which a person 

currently serving a felony sentence for an offense that is now a misdemeanor, may 

petition for a recall of that sentence and request resentencing in accordance with the 

offense statutes as added or amended by Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) A 

person who satisfies the criteria in subdivision (a) of section 1170.18 shall have his or her 

sentence recalled and be “resentenced to a misdemeanor ... unless the court, in its 

discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of 

danger to public safety.” (Id., subd. (b).)17

Hidden in the lengthy, fairly abstruse text of the proposed law, as presented in the 

official ballot pamphlet — and nowhere called to voters’ attention — is the provision at 

 

16 In light of defendant’s demonstrated inability to comply with the terms of parole 

supervision, the fact he would be subject to mandatory PRCS upon release (see People v. 

Tubbs, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at pp. 585-586; People v. Espinoza, supra, 226 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 637-638) does not alter our analysis or conclusion.

* See footnote, ante, page 1.

17 Proposition 47 also created a process whereby eligible persons who have already 

completed their sentences may have the particular conviction or convictions designated 

as misdemeanors. (§ 1170.18, subds. (f), (g).)
24.

issue in the present appeal. Subdivision (c) of section 1170.18 provides: “As used 

throughout this Code, ‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ means an 

unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning 

of clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667.” 

Section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv) lists the following felonies, sometimes called 

“super strike” offenses:

“(I) A ‘sexually violent offense’ as defined in subdivision (b) of 

Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

“(II) Oral copulation with a child who is under 14 years of age, and 

who is more than 10 years younger than he or she as defined by Section 

288a, sodomy with another person who is under 14 years of age and more 

than 10 years younger than he or she as defined by Section 286, or sexual 

penetration with another person who is under 14 years of age, and who is 

more than 10 years younger than he or she, as defined by Section 289.

“(III) A lewd or lascivious act involving a child under 14 years of 

age, in violation of Section 288.

“(IV) Any homicide offense, including any attempted homicide 

offense, defined in Sections 187 to 191.5, inclusive.

“(V) Solicitation to commit murder as defined in Section 653f.

“(VI) Assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or firefighter, as 

defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 245.

“(VII) Possession of a weapon of mass destruction, as defined in 

paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 11418.

“(VIII) Any serious and/or violent felony offense punishable in 

California by life imprisonment or death.”

The question is whether section 1170.18, subdivision (c) now limits a trial court’s 

discretion to deny resentencing under the Act to those cases in which resentencing the 
25.

defendant would pose an unreasonable risk he or she will commit a new “super strike”

offense. Defendant says it does. The People disagree. We agree with the People.

18

“‘In interpreting a voter initiative ..., we apply the same principles that govern 

statutory construction. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘“The fundamental purpose of statutory 

construction is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of 

the law. [Citations.]”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Superior Court (Cervantes) (2014) 225 

Cal.App.4th 1007, 1014.) Thus, in the case of a provision adopted by the voters, “their 

intent governs. [Citations.]” (People v. Jones (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1142, 1146.)

To determine intent, “‘we look first to the words themselves. [Citations.]’” 

(People v. Superior Court (Cervantes), supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014.) We give the 

statute’s words “‘a plain and commonsense meaning. [Citation.] We do not, however, 

consider the statutory language “in isolation.” [Citation.] Rather, we look to “the entire 

substance of the statute ... in order to determine the scope and purpose of the 

provision .... [Citation.]” [Citation.] That is, we construe the words in question “‘in 

context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute ....’ [Citation.]” 

[Citation.] We must harmonize “the various parts of a statutory enactment ... by 

considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a 

whole.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, 112.) We 

“accord[] significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the 

legislative purpose. A construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.... 

[S]tatutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both 

 

18 We solicited supplemental briefing concerning Proposition 47. Among the 

questions we asked counsel to answer were whether defendant met the criteria for 

resentencing under section 1170.18 and, if so, whether we needed to determine the 

applicability, if any, of section 1170.18, subdivision (c) to resentencing proceedings 

under section 1170.126. We are satisfied it is appropriate for us to reach the issue of 

applicability regardless of whether defendant might obtain resentencing under 

Proposition 47.
26.

internally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.]” (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. 

Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387.)

“‘“When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for 

construction and courts should not indulge in it.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. 

Hendrix (1997) 16 Cal.4th 508, 512.) On its face, “[a]s used throughout this Code,” as 

employed in section 1170.18, subdivision (c), clearly and unambiguously refers to the 

Penal Code, not merely section 1170.18 or the other provisions contained in 

Proposition 47. (See People v. Bucchierre (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 153, 164-165, 166; see 

also Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1254-

1255; People v. Vasquez (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 763, 766.)

This does not mean, however, that the definition contained in section 1170.18, 

subdivision (c) must inexorably be read into section 1170.126, subdivision (f). (Cf. 

Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255.) “The 

literal language of a statute does not prevail if it conflicts with the lawmakers’ intent .... 

[Citations.]” (People v. Osuna, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1033-1034.) “‘The 

apparent purpose of a statute will not be sacrificed to a literal construction.’ [Citation.]” 

(Cossack v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 726, 733.) Rather, “the literal meaning 

of a statute must be in accord with its purpose.” (People v. Mohammed (2008) 162 

Cal.App.4th 920, 927.) “[I]t is settled that the language of a statute should not be given a 

literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences that the [voters] did not 

intend” (In re Michele D. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 600, 606), or would “frustrate[] the manifest 

purposes of the legislation as a whole ....” (People v. Williams (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 

1389, 1393.) “To this extent, therefore, intent prevails over the letter of the law and the 

letter will be read in accordance with the spirit of the enactment. [Citation.]” (In re 

Michele D., supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 606; accord, People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 

95.)
27.

Thus, “‘we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be 

achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, 

contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the 

statute is a part. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] We also ‘“refer to other indicia of the voters’ 

intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.” 

[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Osuna, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1034.) We 

consider “the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation” (Dyna-Med, 

Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1387), as well as “the 

wider historical circumstances” of the statute’s or statutes’ enactment (ibid.). “‘Using 

these extrinsic aids, we “select the construction that comports most closely with the 

apparent intent of the [electorate], with a view to promoting rather than defeating the 

general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd

consequences.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Osuna, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 1034-1035.)

Proposition 47 and the Act address related, but not identical, subjects. As we 

explain, reading them together, and considering section 1170.18, subdivision (c) in the 

context of the statutory framework as a whole (see People v. Acosta, supra, 29 Cal.4th at 

p. 112; Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 658-659; In re 

Cindy B. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 771, 781), we conclude its literal meaning does not 

comport with the purpose of the Act, and applying it to resentencing proceedings under 

the Act would frustrate, rather than promote, that purpose and the intent of the electorate 

in enacting both initiative measures (see People v. Disibio (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 

5).

As is evidenced by its title, the Act was aimed solely at revising the three strikes 

law. That law, as originally enacted by the Legislature, was described by us as follows:

“Under the three strikes law, defendants are punished not just for 

their current offense but for their recidivism. Recidivism in the 
28.

commission of multiple felonies poses a danger to society justifying the 

imposition of longer sentences for subsequent offenses. [Citation.] The 

primary goals of recidivist statutes are: ‘... to deter repeat offenders and, at 

some point in the life of one who repeatedly commits criminal offenses 

serious enough to be punished as felonies, to segregate that person from the 

rest of society for an extended period of time. This segregation and its 

duration are based not merely on that person’s most recent offense but also 

on the propensities he has demonstrated over a period of time during which 

he has been convicted of and sentenced for other crimes. Like the line 

dividing felony theft from petty larceny, the point at which a recidivist will 

be deemed to have demonstrated the necessary propensities and the amount 

of time that the recidivist will be isolated from society are matters largely 

within the discretion of the punishing jurisdiction.’ [Citation.]

“By enacting the three strikes law, the Legislature acknowledged the 

will of Californians that the goals of retribution, deterrence, and 

incapacitation be given precedence in determining the appropriate 

punishment for crimes. Further, those goals were best achieved by 

ensuring ‘longer prison sentences and greater punishment’ for second and 

third ‘strikers.’” (People v. Cooper (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 815, 823-

824.)19

A few months before the November 6, 2012, election, the California Supreme 

Court observed: “One aspect of the [three strikes] law that has proven controversial is 

that the lengthy punishment prescribed by the law may be imposed not only when ... a 

defendant [who has previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies] 

is convicted of another serious or violent felony but also when he or she is convicted of 

any offense that is categorized under California law as a felony. This is so even when the 

current, so-called triggering, offense is nonviolent and may be widely perceived as 

relatively minor. [Citations.]” (In re Coley, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 528-529.)

 

19 The foregoing applies equally to the three strikes initiative measure that added 

section 1170.12 to the Penal Code. The following statement of intent preceded the text of 

the statute in Proposition 184, which was approved by voters on November 8, 1994: “‘It 

is the intent of the People of the State of California in enacting this measure to ensure 

longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have 

been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.’” (See Historical 

and Statutory Notes, 50C West’s Ann. Pen. Code (2004 ed.) foll. § 1170.12, p. 239.)
29.

Clearly, by approving the Act, voters resolved this controversy in favor of strike 

offenders. Thus, one of the “Findings and Declarations” of the Act stated the Act would 

“[r]estore the Three Strikes law to the public’s original understanding by requiring life 

sentences only when a defendant’s current conviction is for a violent or serious crime.” 

(Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012) text of proposed law, § 1, p. 105.) 

Nowhere, however, do the ballot materials for the Act suggest voters intended essentially 

to open the prison doors to existing third strike offenders in all but the most egregious 

cases, as would be the result if the definition of “‘unreasonable risk of danger to public 

safety’” contained in section 1170.18, subdivision (c) were engrafted onto resentencing 

proceedings under section 1170.126, subdivision (f). That voters did not intend such a 

result is amply demonstrated by the fact an indeterminate life term remains mandatory 

under the Act for a wide range of current offenses even if the offender does not have a 

prior conviction for a “super strike” offense (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)), 

and that an inmate is rendered ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126 for an 

array of reasons beyond his or her having suffered such a prior conviction (§ 1170.126, 

subd. (e)(2)).

The Act clearly placed public safety above the cost savings likely to accrue as a 

result of its enactment. Thus, as we previously observed, uncodified section 7 of the Act 

provides: “This act is an exercise of the public power of the people of the State of 

California for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State of 

California, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate those purposes.” (Voter 

Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012), supra, text of proposed law, p. 110, 

original italics omitted, italics added.) As we explained in People v. Osuna, supra, 225 

Cal.App.4th at page 1036, “Although the Act ‘diluted’ the three strikes law somewhat 

[citation], ‘[e]nhancing public safety was a key purpose of the Act’ [citation].”

In contrast, Proposition 47 — while titled “the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools 

Act” — emphasized monetary savings. The “Findings and Declarations” state: “The 
30.

people of the State of California find and declare as follows: [¶] The people enact the 

Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act to ensure that prison spending is focused on violent 

and serious offenses, to maximize alternatives for nonserious, nonviolent crime, and to 

invest the savings generated from this act into prevention and support programs in K-12 

schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment. This act ensures that 

sentences for people convicted of dangerous crimes like rape, murder, and child 

molestation are not changed.” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text 

of proposed law, § 2, p. 70.) Uncodified section 15 of the measure provides: “This act 

shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes,” while uncodified section 18 

states: “This act shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.” (Voter 

Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), supra, text of proposed law, p. 74.) 

Proposition 47 requires misdemeanor sentences for various drug possession and property 

offenses, unless the perpetrator has a prior conviction for a “super strike” offense or for 

an offense requiring sex offender registration pursuant to section 290, subdivision (c). 

(Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, subd. (a), 11357, subd. (a), 11377, subd. (a); §§ 459.5, 

subd. (a), 473, subd. (b), 476a, subd. (b), 490.2, subd. (a), 496, subd. (a), 666, subd. (b).) 

Section 1170.18 renders ineligible for resentencing only those inmates whose current 

offense would now be a misdemeanor, but who have a prior conviction for a “super 

strike” offense or for an offense requiring sex offender registration pursuant to 

section 290, subdivision (c). (§ 1170.18, subds. (a), (i).)

Nowhere in the ballot materials for Proposition 47 were voters given any 

indication that initiative, which dealt with offenders whose current convictions would 

now be misdemeanors rather than felonies, had any impact on the Act, which dealt with 

offenders whose current convictions would still be felonies, albeit not third strikes. For 

instance, the Official Title and Summary stated, in pertinent part, that Proposition 47 

would “[r]equire[] resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses[, 

i.e., offenses that require misdemeanor sentences under the measure] unless court finds 
31.

unreasonable public safety risk.” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), 

supra, official title and summary, p. 34.) In explaining what Proposition 47 would do, 

the Legislative Analyst stated: “This measure reduces penalties for certain offenders 

convicted of nonserious and nonviolent property and drug crimes. This measure also 

allows certain offenders who have been previously convicted of such crimes to apply for 

reduced sentences.” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), supra, 

analysis of Prop. 47 by Legis. Analyst, p. 35, italics added.) With respect to the 

resentencing provision, the Legislative Analyst explained:

“This measure allows offenders currently serving felony sentences 

for the above crimes[, i.e., grand theft, shoplifting, receiving stolen 

property, writing bad checks, check forgery, and drug possession] to apply 

to have their felony sentences reduced to misdemeanor sentences. In 

addition, certain offenders who have already completed a sentence for a 

felony that the measure changes could apply to the court to have their 

felony conviction changed to a misdemeanor. However, no offender who 

has committed a specified severe crime could be resentenced or have their 

conviction changed. In addition, the measure states that a court is not 

required to resentence an offender currently serving a felony sentence if the 

court finds it likely that the offender will commit a specified severe crime. 

Offenders who are resentenced would be required to be on state parole for 

one year, unless the judge chooses to remove that requirement.” (Id. at 

p. 36, italics added.)

Similarly, the arguments in favor of and against Proposition 47 spoke in terms 

solely of Proposition 47, and never mentioned the Act. The Argument in Favor of 

Proposition 47 spoke in terms of prioritizing serious and violent crime so as to stop 

wasting prison space “on petty crimes,” stop “wasting money on warehousing people in 

prisons for nonviolent petty crimes,” and stop California’s overcrowded prisons from 

“incarcerating too many people convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses.” (Voter 

Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), supra, argument in favor of Prop. 47, 

p. 38.) The Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 47 reiterated these themes, and 

never suggested Proposition 47 would have any effect on resentencing under the Act. 
32.

(See Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), supra, rebuttal to argument 

against Prop. 47, p. 39.) Although the Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 47 

asserted 10,000 inmates would be eligible for early release under the measure, and that 

many of them had prior convictions “for serious crimes, such as assault, robbery and 

home burglary” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), supra, rebuttal to 

argument in favor of Prop. 47, p. 38), there is no suggestion the early release provisions 

would extend to inmates whose current offenses remained felonies under the Act. The 

same is true of the discussion of resentencing contained in the Argument Against 

Proposition 47. (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014), supra, argument 

against Prop. 47, p. 39.)

In light of the foregoing, we cannot reasonably conclude voters intended the 

definition of “‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’” contained in 

section 1170.18, subdivision (c) to apply to that phrase as it appears in section 1170.126, 

subdivision (f), despite the former section’s preamble, “As used throughout this 

Code ....” Voters cannot intend something of which they are unaware.

We are cognizant one of the Act’s authors has taken the position Proposition 47’s 

definition of “unreasonable risk of danger” applies to resentencing proceedings under the 

Act. (St. John & Gerber, Prop. 47 Jolts Landscape of California Justice System (Nov. 5, 

2014) Los Angeles Times <http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-ff-polproposition47-20141106-story.html> [as of Feb. 5, 2015].) Looking at the information 

conveyed to voters, however, this clearly was not their intent and so an author’s desire is 

of no import. (Cf. People v. Garcia (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1166, 1175-1176, fn. 5; People v. 

Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 83; Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. 

Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26, 30.)

We are also mindful “it has long been settled that ‘[t]he enacting body is deemed 

to be aware of existing laws and judicial constructions in effect at the time legislation is 

enacted’ [citation], ‘and to have enacted or amended a statute in light thereof’ [citation]. 
33.

‘This principle applies to legislation enacted by initiative. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” 

(People v. Superior Court (Cervantes), supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at p. 1015; accord, In re 

Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 890, fn. 11.) Thus, we presume voters were aware 

“unreasonable risk of danger to public safety,” as used in section 1170.126, 

subdivision (f), had been judicially construed as not being impermissibly vague, but as 

nevertheless having no fixed definition. (People v. Garcia (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 763, 

769-770; People v. Flores, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1075.) Because nowhere in the 

ballot materials for Proposition 47 was it called to voters’ attention the definition of the 

phrase contained in section 1170.18, subdivision (c) would apply to resentencing 

proceedings under the Act, we simply cannot conclude voters intended Proposition 47 to 

alter the Act in that respect. Voters are not asked or presumed to be able to discern all 

potential effects of a proposed initiative measure; this is why they are provided with voter 

information guides containing not only the actual text of such a measure, but also a 

neutral explanation and analysis by the Legislative Analyst and arguments in support of 

and in opposition to the measure. As we have already observed, none of those materials 

so much as hinted that Proposition 47 could have the slightest effect on resentencing 

under the Act. (Cf. Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist., supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 

at pp. 1255-1256 [legislative history of enactment included information bill would add 

definition of particular term to Public Contract Code].)20

We are asked to infer an intent to extend section 1170.18, subdivision (c)’s 

definition to proceedings under section 1170.126 because the phrase in question only 

appears in those sections of the Penal Code. We cannot do so. The only resentencing 

 

20 For the same reasons, we reject any suggestion the definition contained in 

section 1170.18, subdivision (c) was intended to clarify the true meaning of 

“unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as used in section 1170.126, 

subdivision (f). (Cf. Re-Open Rambla, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1995) 39 

Cal.App.4th 1499, 1511; In re Connie M. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1225, 1238.)
34.

mentioned in the Proposition 47 ballot materials was resentencing for inmates whose 

current offenses would be reduced to misdemeanors, not those who would still warrant 

second strike felony terms. There is a huge difference, both legally and in public safety 

risked, between someone with multiple prior serious and/or violent felony convictions 

whose current offense is (or would be, if committed today) a misdemeanor, and someone 

whose current offense is a felony. Accordingly, treating the two groups differently for 

resentencing purposes does not lead to absurd results, but rather is eminently logical.

We recognize “[i]t is an established rule of statutory construction ... that when 

statutes are in pari materia similar phrases appearing in each should be given like 

meanings. [Citations.]” (People v. Caudillo (1978) 21 Cal.3d 562, 585, overruled on

another ground in People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 229, 237, fn. 6 & 

disapproved on another ground in People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 749-751 & 

fn. 5; see Robbins v. Omnibus R. Co. (1867) 32 Cal. 472, 474.) We question whether 

Proposition 47 and the Act are truly in pari materia: That phrase means “[o]n the same 

subject; relating to the same matter” (Black’s Law Dict. (9th ed. 2009) p. 862), and the 

two measures (albeit with some overlap) address different levels of offenses and 

offenders. In any event, “canons of statutory construction are merely aids to ascertaining 

probable legislative intent” (Stone v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 503, 521, fn. 10); 

they are “mere guides and will not be applied so as to defeat the underlying legislative 

intent otherwise determined [citation]” (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing 

Com., supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1391).

The Act was intended to reform the three strikes law while keeping intact that 

scheme’s core commitment to public safety. Allowing trial courts broad discretion to 

determine whether resentencing an eligible petitioner under the Act “would pose an 

unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” (§ 1170.126, subd. (f)) clearly furthers the 

Act’s purpose. Whatever the wisdom of Proposition 47’s policy of near-universal 

resentencing where misdemeanants are concerned — and “[i]t is not for us to gainsay the 
35.

wisdom of this legislative choice” (Bernard v. Foley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 794, 813) —

constraining that discretion so that all but the worst felony offenders are released 

manifestly does not, nor does it comport with voters’ intent in enacting either measure.

Accordingly, Proposition 47 has no effect on defendant’s petition for resentencing 

under the Act. Defendant is not entitled to a remand so the trial court can redetermine 

defendant’s entitlement to resentencing under the Act utilizing the definition of 

“‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’” contained in section 1170.18, 

subdivision (c).21

 

21 Recently, the Third District Court of Appeal held section 1170.18, 

subdivision (c)’s definition of “‘unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’” does not 

apply retroactively to defendants whose petitions for resentencing under the Act were 

decided before the effective date of Proposition 47. (People v. Chaney (2014) 231 

Cal.App.4th 1391, 1395-1396, petn. for review pending, petn. filed Jan. 8, 2015.) 

Chaney did not decide whether Proposition 47’s definition applies prospectively to such 

petitions. (Chaney, supra, at p. 1397, fn. 3.) Were we to conclude section 1170.18, 

subdivision (c) modifies section 1170.126, subdivision (f), we would agree with Chaney

that it does not do so retroactively. We believe, however, that a finding of 

nonretroactivity inexorably leads to the possibility of prospective-only application, and 

that prospective-only application of Proposition 47’s definition to resentencing petitions 

under the Act would raise serious, perhaps insurmountable, equal protection issues. 

“Mindful of the serious constitutional questions that might arise were we to accept a 

literal construction of the statutory language, and of our obligation wherever possible 

both to carry out the intent of the electorate and to construe statutes so as to preserve their 

constitutionality [citations]” (People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765, 769), we rest our 

holding on the reasoning set out in our opinion, ante.
36.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_____________________

DETJEN, J.

I CONCUR:

_____________________

 LEVY, Acting P.J.

I CONCUR IN PART III:

_____________________

 PEÑA, J.
PEÑA, J.

I respectfully dissent from parts IV and V of the majority opinion. I agree the trial 

court could, but was not required to, appoint an expert to evaluate defendant Timothy 

James Rodriguez on the question of his current dangerousness. I would remand the 

matter for resentencing, however, because it appears the trial court abused its discretion 

in denying resentencing on grounds unsupported by the evidence. A remand would 

permit the trial court to consider any changed circumstances establishing unreasonable 

risk of dangerousness since the original hearing date of August 2, 2013. This would 

include the recent clarification of the meaning of the phrase “unreasonable risk of 

dangerousness” by Proposition 47’s1 enactment of Penal Code section 1170.18, 

subdivision (c) (§ 1170.18(c)).

ANALYSIS

On February 22, 2000, defendant was arrested with five bindles of heroin. He 

pled guilty to the crime of possession of heroin for sale in September of 2000 and was 

sentenced to 25 years to life on November 9, 2000, based on prior “strike” convictions 

for robbery in 1984 and a first degree burglary in 1992. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 

subds. (a)-(e).) Between the current charge and the 1992 burglary “strike,” he suffered a 

misdemeanor drug conviction in 1994 and a misdemeanor resisting or delaying arrest in 

violation of Penal Code section 148 in 1998. He filed his petition for resentencing on 

November 13, 2012, and his petition was heard on August 2, 2013, roughly 13 and onehalf years since his heroin possession for sale offense. Since that time, defendant 

suffered no new convictions, no disciplinary violations in prison, and no “write-ups,” not 

one. Instead, defendant obtained his GED and was awarded certificates of completion for 

various courses of academic education. He worked in the prison as a porter and a 

 

1The Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act (Prop. 47, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec.

(Nov. 4, 2014)).
2.

teacher’s aid and was recognized as “an outstanding worker.” He was a member in good 

standing of the “Lifers Group,” he had outstanding attendance in the 12-step recovery 

program of Narcotics Anonymous beginning in 2005, and he completed phases 1 and 2 of 

the Victim Awareness Offenders Program. He was 59 years old at the time of the 

hearing.

The prosecutor agreed defendant was a “model prisoner.” He argued against 

resentencing, however, based on defendant’s “history of petty theft,” which he called a 

“petty theft problem,” and his escalating history of crime, referring to his robbery in 1984 

and his residential burglary in 1992. He repeatedly emphasized this,2 concluding:

“So our concern isn’t so much how the defendant behaves in prison, our 

concern is what has consistently happened when released from prison, and 

not just a safety of property but when it escalates into these actual violent 

serious crimes as it has in the past.”

 

2“[PROSECUTOR]: Addressing specifically, if it’s—what exactly the term ‘public safety’ 

means. There is room, I think, to look at the safety of having your belongings, you know, 

kept secure. But more so, what we see here is an escalation in how property is obtained.

“We’re just not dealing with a history of petty theft. I think we can see from the record 

we have a petty theft problem. But then we see that some times it escalates—it’s 

escalated [into] counts of 211 in 1984 and to a 459 first degree in 1992. So it has 

escalated, these property crimes, into crimes in which we do have what’s considered 

violent and serious felonies.

“More so too, if you look at the—it extends his entire life from 1972, I believe when he 

was 19 years old. And then in 1998, we still have a 148 PC, resisting an officer, until the 

present offense in 2000, and there’s just—either the defendant seems to be in prison or in 

jail or he seems to be violating some law. This is a great concern because I think there’s 

a difference between cases where you have two strikes and no other record, and I’ve seen 

those, and cases where you have two strikes and a dozen other offenses.

“I think when looking at who’s a reasonable danger to society, you have to look and see 

are we dealing with a fundamental issue with the individual where he has shown that all 

modes of rehabilitation when outside of prison have failed and they escalate. And in this 

case, they have escalated in both occasions into robberies and then into first degree 

burglaries as well.”
3.

The evidence does not, however, support a finding of an escalation in defendant’s 

commission of crime since his strike convictions. Instead, as noted above, since his 1992 

residential burglary, defendant’s crimes have deescalated with defendant committing two 

misdemeanors and a felony possession for sale of heroin in early 2000, resulting in his 

life sentence.

Unfortunately, in denying resentencing, the court adopted the prosecutor’s 

unsupported reasoning of an escalating pattern of criminal conduct:

“THE COURT: [A]s mentioned by the People, we’ve seen an 

escalation even without crime during that period 1979 to 1984, the fact that 

we have the felony first degree burglary in 1992.

“So I’m not going to find that he does not present a danger to 

reoffend or to present a danger to society or to safety of the public. I find 

there is a reasonable risk of danger if he would be released on that basis.

“As noted by the People, there has been an escalation in the type of 

crime, so that is my finding, based upon the information provided.

“I am aware of the Lawrence case and Shaputis. And I think 

Shaputis was also cited by the People as well. And looking at whether the 

circumstances of his commitment offenses were considered, I have 

considered those. And his offenses are of concern because it has escalated.

“If it was just a crime, not serious or violent, we wouldn’t be here in 

the first place but he’s got a consistent series of crimes during the time he’s 

out. The greatest period of which he was without crime was the one that 

was just mentioned by the defense. So I’m not ordering that he be 

resentenced.”

Setting aside the fact the standard provided by the law requires a finding of 

“unreasonable risk of danger” not “reasonable risk of danger,” which might be attributed 

to the court simply misspeaking, the facts do not support the conclusion. It seems clear 

the evidence does not support a finding of “an escalation in the type of crime,” which the 

court’s statements appeared to show was the critical finding it relied upon to deny 

resentencing. “A trial court abuses its discretion when the factual findings critical to its 
4.

decision find no support in the evidence.” (People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 

998.) Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by denying resentencing on the 

grounds of “an escalation of crimes.”

Defendant has not had “an escalation” of crimes since his last strike—the 

residential burglary in 1992, which he committed before the three strikes law was 

enacted. Defendant has gone 21 years without an escalation in crime since his residential 

burglary conviction in 1992. Rather, the opposite is true—his crimes since 1992 (two 

misdemeanors and felony drug possession for sale) signaled a retreat from violent or 

serious felonies. In fact, defendant had no crimes for the previous 13 and one-half years. 

Although in custody during that time, defendant has had no violations of any sort during 

that period.

It is true defendant had a history of theft crimes and other violations up until 2000, 

when he received his “Three Strikes” sentence. However, this is only one of many 

factors the trial court may consider in the exercise of its discretion to resentence under 

Penal Code section 1170.126, subdivision (g). More importantly, the trial court may not 

rely on factors unsupported by the evidence that are critical to its decision, as occurred 

here. (People v. Cluff, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 998; In re Robert L.(1993) 21 

Cal.App.4th 1057, 1068 [court’s apparent concern with the possibility grandparents 

might obstruct reunification was wholly speculative and therefore an abuse of discretion 

because it lacked any reasonable basis in the record]; Stack v. Stack (1961) 189 

Cal.App.2d 357, 368 [“It would seem obvious that, if there were no evidence to support 

the decision, there would be an abuse of discretion”].) Therefore, the matter should be 

remanded for resentencing unless the record shows changed circumstances establishing 

unreasonable risk of dangerousness since the hearing date of August 2, 2013.

In addition, I would direct the trial court to apply the current definition of 

“unreasonable risk of danger” in its resentencing hearing, as provided in section 

1170.18(c). I respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis that section 1170.18(c) 
5.

has no application to resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 

2012 (the Act).

Section 1170.18(c) provides: “As used throughout this Code, ‘unreasonable risk 

of danger to public safety’ means an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a 

new violent felony within the meaning of clause (iv) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph

(2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667.”

This section and subdivision were enacted on November 4, 2014, when California 

voters passed Proposition 47, and went into effect the next day (Cal. Const., art II, § 10, 

subd. (a).) Thus, it would apply to a new resentencing hearing under the Act.

“‘When construing a statute, we must “ascertain the intent of the 

Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.”’ [Citations.] ‘[W]e 

begin with the words of a statute and give these words their ordinary 

meaning.’ [Citation.] ‘If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, 

then we need go no further.’ [Citation.] If, however, the language supports 

more than one reasonable construction, we may consider ‘a variety of 

extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to 

be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous 

administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is 

a part.’ [Citation.] Using these extrinsic aids, we ‘select the construction 

that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with 

a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, 

and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.’ 

[Citation.]” (People v. Sinohui (2002) 28 Cal.4th 205, 211-212.)

Where the statutory language is so clear and unambiguous, there is no need for 

statutory construction or to resort to legislative materials or other outside sources. 

(Quarterman v. Kefauver (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1371.) Absent ambiguity, it is 

presumed the voters intend the meaning apparent on the face of an initiative measure, and 

the courts may not add to the statute or rewrite it to conform to a presumed intent not 

apparent in its language. (People v. ex rel. Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) 14 Cal.4th 

294, 301.)
6.

In determining whether the words enacted here are unambiguous, we do not write 

on a blank slate. For example, in Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2004) 119 

Cal.App.4th 1241, 1255, the court stated there “is nothing ambiguous about the phrase 

‘as used in this code.’” It held the definition of “Emergency, as used in this code” 

applied to the entire Public Contract Code, and it was not limited to a particular chapter, 

article, or division of that code. Also, in People v. Bucchierre (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 153, 

166, the court held: “The words ‘as in this code provided’ (Penal Code, § 182) refer to 

the Penal Code.” Thus, the plain meaning rule and stare decisis dictate the conclusion 

that the definition provided in section 1170.18(c) applies to resentencings under the Act.

In a similar vein, the California Supreme Court in People v. Leal (2004) 33 

Cal.4th 999, 1007-1008, applied the plain meaning rule as follows:

“The statutory language of the provision defining ‘duress’ in each of 

the rape statutes is clear and unambiguous. The definition of ‘duress’ in 

both the rape and spousal rape statutes begins with the phrase, ‘As used in 

this section, “duress” means ....’ ([Pen. Code,] §§ 261, subd. (b), 262, 

subd. (c).) This clear language belies any legislative intent to apply the 

definitions of ‘duress’ in the rape and spousal rape statutes to any other 

sexual offenses.

“Starting from the premise that in 1990 the Legislature incorporated 

into the rape statute a definition of ‘duress’ that already was in use for other 

sexual offenses, defendant argues that the Legislature must have intended 

its 1993 amendment of the definition of ‘duress’ in the rape statute, and the 

incorporation of this new definition into the spousal rape statute, to apply as 

well to other sexual offenses that use the term ‘duress.’ Defendant 

observes: ‘The legislative history does not suggest any rationale for why 

the Legislature would want its 1993 amendment of the definition of 

“duress” to apply only to rape so that it would have one meaning when the 

rape statutes use the phrase “force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of 

immediate and unlawful bodily injury” but another, much more expansive 

meaning when the identical phrase is used in the statutes defining sodomy, 

lewd acts on a child, oral copulation and foreign object rape.’

“But the Legislature was not required to set forth its reasons for 

providing a different definition of ‘duress’ for rape and spousal rape than 

has been used in other sexual offenses; it is clear that it did so. ‘When 
7.

“‘statutory language is ... clear and unambiguous there is no need for 

construction, and courts should not indulge in it.’” [Citations.] The plain 

meaning of words in a statute may be disregarded only when that meaning 

is “‘repugnant to the general purview of the act,’ or for some other 

compelling reason ....” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] As we said in an 

analogous situation: ‘It is our task to construe, not to amend, the statute. 

“In the construction of a statute ... the office of the judge is simply to 

ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not 

to insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted ....” 

[Citation.] We may not, under the guise of construction, rewrite the law or 

give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the 

terms used.’ [Citation.]”

Because the Act had not previously defined the phrase “unreasonable risk of 

danger to public safety,” the definition in section 1170.18(c) cannot be repugnant or 

contradictory to the Act, nor is there a compelling reason not to apply the plain meaning 

rule here. Consequently, this new definition would apply to any resentencing hearings 

under the Penal Code, including the Act, after November 4, 2014.3

_________________________

PEÑA, J.

 

3While I agree with the majority opinion that section 1170.18(c) has no retroactive 

application to pending appellate cases, because I conclude a remand for resentencing is 

necessary here, section 1170.18(c) would apply prospectively to such a resentencing 

hearing if held after November 4, 2014.