In People v. Fletcher, a 4-3 Supreme Court yesterday gave a broad retroactive interpretation to Assembly Bill 333, 2021 legislation that narrowed liability for gang-related crimes and enhancements. It is the first 4-3 split of the 2024-2025 term.
In cases not yet final, a conviction under pre-AB 333 law is to evaluated under the new AB 333 standards to determine if, in sentencing for a later offense, the conviction is a prior serious felony that would require a longer prison term under the Three Strikes and felony enhancement laws. The court also held that this retroactive application doesn’t unconstitutionally amend either of two ballot initiatives.
The majority opinion by Justice Goodwin Liu says “the relevant statutes are not paragons of clarity,” but concludes it is important that “whether a defendant has suffered a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony is a determination made by courts in a current proceeding — i.e., when a defendant has been convicted of a new felony.”
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero dissented, joined by Justices Carol Corrigan and Martin Jenkins. Saying the majority “embraces an obscure syntactical argument that no party has raised” and has “claim[ed] the authority to change the Three Strikes law under the guise of interpreting it,” the Chief Justice writes the majority creates a “novel standard [that] is virtually impossible to meet, and [that] will nullify decades of prior convictions that would otherwise support enhanced sentences for repeat felony offenders.” Instead of applying law enacted after a prior conviction, “the statutes necessarily and logically look backward to the conviction itself to determine its nature,” the dissent asserts.
The court reverses a Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal partially published opinion. It also disapproves the Fourth District, Division Two, decision in People v. Scott (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1176, the Second District, Division Six, decision in People v. Aguirre (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 488, and the Fifth District decision in People v. Gonzalez (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1300.
Scott, Aguirre, and Gonzalez are all grant-and-holds for yesterday’s opinion.
