California Court of Appeal Jan 15, 2014 No. E059248Unpublished
Filed 1/15/14 P. v. Downs CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E059248
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB13463)
RONALD JAMES DOWNS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Ronald James Downs appeals after the trial court denied
his petition for recall of his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the
Reform Act). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1997, defendant was charged as a third striker under the former version of the
does the same. One of defendant’s prior strike convictions was for murder, a
disqualifying strike offense. The trial court properly determined that defendant was not
eligible for resentencing under the Reform Act.
At the time of defendant’s conviction in 1997, proof of only one prior theft-related
conviction was required to support conviction of petty theft with a prior. Defendant was
4
duly convicted of the offense as defined at the time, which did properly subject him to
three strikes treatment. Generally, unless a contrary intent is indicated, it is presumed
that an amended statute is intended to apply prospectively only. (Pen. Code, § 3; see
People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179, 184.) An exception exists, however, when a
penal statute has been amended to lessen the punishment therefor. (In re Estrada (1965)
63 Cal.2d 740.) The California Supreme Court held that, where a statute has been
amended to lessen the punishment for an offense and there is no clear indication of an
intent to apply the amendment prospectively only, it must be presumed that the
Legislature intended the mitigated punishment to apply to all judgments not yet final as
of the effective date of the amended statute. (Id. at pp. 744–747.) Here, even if the
amendment to Penal Code section 666 was ameliorative, defendant was not eligible for
the benefit of the Estrada rule because his conviction was long since final at the time of
the amendment. Amendment of the statute years later did not affect the validity of
defendant’s conviction at the time.1
1 The digest of the proposed amendment stated: “Existing law provides that petty theft is a misdemeanor, except that every person who, having been convicted of petty theft, grand theft, auto theft, burglary, carjacking, robbery, or receiving stolen property and having served time in a penal institution therefor, is subsequently convicted of petty theft, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison. [¶] This bill would require that most persons be convicted 3 or more times of a qualifying offense to be subject to imprisonment in the state prison for petty theft.” (Pen. Code, § 666, as amended by Stats. 2010, ch. 219, § 15.) The legislation was an urgency statute (known as the Chelsea King Child Predator Prevention Act of 2010), and effective immediately, September 9, 2010. (Stats. 2010, ch. 219, § 29.)
5
None of the suggested issues is meritorious or warrants reversal. (Cal. Const.,
art. VI, § 13.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for recall of sentence is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
RICHLI J.
MILLER J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act because he had a prior conviction for murder, which is a disqualifying offense under the statute.
Issues
Whether the denial of a petition for recall of sentence is an appealable order.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for recall of sentence.
Whether the 2010 amendment to Penal Code section 666 affects the validity of the defendant's 1997 conviction.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court properly determined that defendant was not eligible for resentencing under the Reform Act.”
“One of defendant’s prior strike convictions was for murder, a disqualifying strike offense.”
“Amendment of the statute years later did not affect the validity of defendant’s conviction at the time.”