People v. Pombo CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 1, 2015 No. F069204Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is ineligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act if they were armed with a firearm during the commission of their commitment offense, regardless of whether that possession was tethered to an underlying felony. Furthermore, the court held that the People are not required to prove disqualifying factors beyond a reasonable doubt in resentencing proceedings.

Issues

Whether the People must prove a defendant's ineligibility for resentencing under Proposition 36 beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm must be tethered to an underlying felony to disqualify an inmate from resentencing under Proposition 36.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the literal language of [Proposition 36] disqualifies an inmate from resentencing if he or she was armed with a firearm during the unlawful possession of that firearm.”

“there is no need for a separate, underlying felony if the record demonstrates that the defendant was armed with a firearm during the unlawful possession of that firearm.”

“the People bear no burden of proving a disqualifying offense under Proposition 36.”

Filed 12/1/15 P. v. Pombo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F069204 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 143275) v.

STEVEN STACY POMBO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Scott T. Steffen, Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Paul E. O’Connor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36) permits third strike offenders serving indeterminate life sentences for crimes that are not serious or violent felonies to petition for resentencing. (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.126 et seq.) If a petitioning offender satisfies the statute’s eligibility criteria, they are resentenced as a second strike offender “unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) Following the enactment of Proposition 36, defendant filed a petition for resentencing. The trial court, however, found defendant statutorily ineligible for resentencing and denied the petition. On appeal, defendant contends (1) the People failed to produce evidence establishing his ineligibility for resentencing beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm cannot disqualify an inmate from resentencing in the absence of an underlying felony to which the firearm possession is tethered. We affirm. FACTS2 On October 28, 1997, Modesto police effected a traffic stop on a pickup truck being driven by Robert Carrillo. Defendant was riding in the passenger’s seat. Officers ordered the occupants out of the vehicle, and a subsequent search yielded a useable amount of methamphetamine in defendant’s front pocket, as well as marijuana, a syringe, ammunition, and a handgun from the passenger’s-side floorboard. Upon questioning by the police, defendant admitted the weapon belonged to him.

People v. Pombo CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief