The court yesterday denied review in People v. Castaneda-Morales, but half of the court’s current justices filed a concurring statement expressing displeasure with the appeal’s outcome and recommended ameliorative legislation. The statement — authored by Justice Goodwin Liu and concurred in by Justices Joshua Groban and Kelli Evans — says a statutory revision is necessary to conform 2021 sentencing changes to the Legislature’s intent in making the changes.
The case concerns Senate Bill 567, which precludes imposition of the highest of three possible sentencing terms unless the defendant has stipulated to, or a trier of fact has found, aggravating circumstances. The specific issue is whether the defendant’s prior felony conviction was properly considered to be an aggravating circumstance and also used to increase the sentence under the Three Strikes law. Part of SB 567 — Penal Code section 1170(b)(5) — bars a court from “impos[ing] an upper term by using the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed under any provision of law.” The Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal concluded the dual use of the prior conviction didn’t violate section 1170 “because the Three Strikes law is an alternative sentencing scheme, not an enhancement subject to the dual use proscription.”
Justice Liu highlighted SB 567’s history, as intended to “ ‘ “confront the reality and interconnectedness of racism and inequality” ’ in the ‘ “mass incarceration trend in American and California societies.” ’ ” And he “join[ed]” the Division Five justice who, in a concurring opinion in the case, “invit[ed] the Legislature to examine whether a carve-out for the Three Strikes law in section 1170, subdivision (b)(5) is ‘in tension with the apparent ameliorative purpose animating passage of’ the provision and should be reformed.”
The Supreme Court will hear argument next month in People v. Mitchell, another SB 567 case.
