People v. Cargill (1995) · DecisionDepot

People v. Cargill

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Sep 25, 1995 No. D021469Published

Before: Huffman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the "three strikes" law, as an urgency statute, became effective immediately upon its filing with the Secretary of State, and that its application to the defendant did not violate due process.

Issues

Whether the "three strikes" law became effective on the day it was signed and filed or the following day.
Whether the application of the "three strikes" law violated the defendant's due process rights regarding fair notice.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Plainly, the three strikes law, an urgency measure, went into effect at the time it was filed by the Governor with the Secretary of State and was validly in place when Cargill committed the current offenses.”

“Cargill suffered no deprivation of his due process right to fair notice that his conduct was unlawful.”

Synopsis

[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]

Opinion

HUFFMAN, J.

This case illustrates the wisdom of the commonly-used phrase, “Timing is everything in life.” In this instance, appellant Bartholemew Cargill was arrested in the possession of cocaine base about 10:15 p.m. on March 7, 1994. That rather uneventful statistical fact becomes more important in light of the action at 2:45 p.m. on the same day in Sacramento when the Governor signed and filed with the Secretary of State the new “three strikes” law. At the time of his current offense, Cargill had suffered at least one qualifying prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e).

Cargill appeals his sentence, raising, among other contentions, the urgency measure signed by the Governor on March 7, 1994, was not “immediately” effective until at least March 8, 1994. We will reject all of Cargill’s contentions and affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Facts and Procedural Background

About 10:15 p.m. on March 7, 1994, Cargill was stopped for driving erratically and without headlights. As a result of the arrest that followed, police recovered 8.4 grams of rock cocaine and found Cargill under the influence of drugs.

[1554]

A jury convicted Cargill of transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), and possession of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). He was also convicted of driving under the influence of drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and using offensive words within the meaning of Penal Code section 415, subdivision (3). Cargill waived trial on the alleged prior convictions. He admitted a prior prison term pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and a prior conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (d) and (e). The trial court, treating the case as a second strike case, sentenced Cargill to a total term of six years in prison, representing the lower term for possession of cocaine base for sale, doubled for a total of six years. All other sentences were to run concurrently. The court also imposed a $1,000 restitution fine. Cargill has filed a timely notice of appeal.

People v. Cargill

AI Brief

Synopsis

HUFFMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II, III

AI Brief