Court Opinion

ID: 9631155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:30:14.33592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:29.334439
License: Public Domain

EAGLESON, J.
I concur in the judgment, and in the bulk of the majority’s reasoning. Whatever else it means, article I, section 28, subdivision (0 *441(hereafter section 28(f)), was certainly intended to preclude application of the double-the-base-term rule to enhancements based on prior felonies.
I have reservations, however, about the majority’s more general comments on the meaning of section 28(f). (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 437-439.) These comments are unnecessary to our holding, and given the infinite variety of prior-felony enhancement issues which may arise, they seem premature and imprudent.
As the majority recognize, “the phrase ‘without limitation’ can present unique interpretive difficulties” in the context of sentence enhancement. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 437.) Any current effort, however tentative, to develop a “general theory” of section 28(f) may present unforeseen difficulties later. To me, it therefore seems wisest to proceed cautiously, on a case-by-case basis.
For this reason, I do not subscribe to the majority’s discussion on pages 437 through 439. In all other respects, I concur in the majority’s analysis and result.