For the second time this month, the Supreme Court has found broad superior court discretion to deny petitions for resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. In People v. Estrada, the Supreme Court today holds that such a denial can be based on facts underlying a charged count that was dismissed according to a plea bargain, but “only if those facts also underlie a count to which the defendant pleaded guilty.” The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar concludes that, to determine whether the defendant was armed while committing his third strike offense, which would bar three-strikes relief, the superior court properly considered 16-year-old testimony at a preliminary hearing preceding the guilty plea. The court states that “[p]recluding a court from considering facts not encompassed within the judgment of conviction would be inconsistent with the [Act’s] text, structure, and purpose.”
The court affirms the Second District, Division Eight, Court of Appeal. It also disapproves a 2015 opinion by the Fourth District, Division Three.
