Siding with the Attorney General over the Santa Barbara District Attorney, a 5-2 Supreme Court last week in People v. Superior Court (Guevara) allowed for a possible substantial reduction in a Three Strikes sentence (from 25-years-to-life to eight years) under Senate Bill 483 (Pen. Code, § 1172.75). The issue was whether the Legislature in 2021’s SB 483 unconstitutionally amended an initiative adopted by the voters — Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.
The majority opinion by Justice Kelli Evans interpreted SB 483 “as a matter of constitutional avoidance” to harmonize it with Prop 36. In so doing, the court permits the defendant to take advantage of the latter legislation, which could require the substantial sentence reduction, but, contrary to the defendant’s wishes, incorporates a Prop 36 caveat that relief will be unavailable if the trial court finds “imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.”
Justice Carol Corrigan dissented, joined by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, arguing that the longer, previously imposed Three Strikes sentence should be reinstated. She wrote that, by “adopt[ing] an interpretation [of SB 483] which violates the explicit requirements of [Prop 36],” the majority opinion “endorses [a] legislative overreach and is contrary to the intent of the voters when they passed the Initiative.” Claiming that the court’s decision “subverts the initiative process itself,” the dissent argued, “Constitutional avoidance does not encompass judicial authority to amend an otherwise clear but improperly enacted statute, like the one here.”
The court reverses a 2-1 Second District, Division Six, Court of Appeal published opinion (see here and here).
