In People v. Perez, the superior court found the defendant had not been armed with a deadly weapon when he committed his current offense, a finding that made him eligible for resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. The Supreme Court today disagrees, unanimously concluding that the finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Significant for future cases, the court’s opinion by Justice Goodwin Liu further holds that “the Sixth Amendment does not bar a trial court from considering facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt when determining the applicability of a resentencing ineligibility criterion under Proposition 36.” The court has limited Proposition 36 resentencing opportunities before.
Justice Carol Corrigan writes a concurring opinion. She differs with the majority only in her view that the issue whether the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon should be decided independently in this case, not reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard.
The court affirms the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
