California Court of Appeal Feb 2, 2016 No. E062780Unpublished
Filed 2/2/16 P. v. Moore 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E062780
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB21863)
RONNIE GENE MOORE, 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 with directions.
Kenneth H. Nordin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Minh U.
Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Ronnie Moore is serving a prison sentence of 86 years to life under the
Three Strikes law after a jury convicted him in 2000 of two counts of second degree
commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and two counts of second degree robbery
Defendant correctly argues that his robbery convictions do not make him
ineligible for resentencing on his burglary convictions. The California Supreme Court
has resolved a split of authority on the issue of the eligibility for resentencing of an
inmate serving an indeterminate life sentence for several offenses, only some of which
are neither serious nor violent felonies. (Johnson, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 674.) The court
rejected the argument that “resentencing is allowed only if all of a prisoner’s current
offenses are neither serious nor violent . . . .” (Id. at p. 688.) It held that an inmate’s
eligibility for resentencing must be evaluated on a count-by-count basis (ibid.), and the
inmate “is eligible for resentencing with respect to a current offense that is neither serious
nor violent despite the presence of another current offense that is serious or violent.” (Id.
at p. 695.)
The People concede that defendant’s current convictions for second degree
commercial burglary are not defined as violent felonies by section 667.5, subdivision (c),
or as serious felonies by section 1192.7, subdivision (c). Because “the Act requires an
inmate’s eligibility for resentencing to be evaluated on a count-by-count basis” (Johnson,
supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 688), defendant is entitled to a remand so the superior court can
determine whether defendant is otherwise eligible for resentencing and, if so, the court
can exercise its discretion to determine whether resentencing him on the burglary
convictions only “would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety”
(§ 1170.126, subd. (f)).
DISPOSITION
This matter is remanded to the superior court to determine whether, apart from the
two robbery convictions from 2000, defendant is eligible for resentencing on the burglary
convictions. If appellant is eligible for resentencing, the superior court will then exercise
its discretion under section 1170.126, subdivision (f)), to determine whether to resentence
defendant. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
MILLER J.
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. An inmate serving an indeterminate life sentence for multiple offenses is eligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act on counts that are neither serious nor violent, even if other current offenses are serious or violent.
Issues
Whether a defendant is ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 36 if some, but not all, of their current convictions are for serious or violent felonies.
Disposition. Affirmed with directions; remanded.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“an inmate’s eligibility for resentencing must be evaluated on a count-by-count basis”
“the inmate “is eligible for resentencing with respect to a current offense that is neither serious nor violent despite the presence of another current offense that is serious or violent.””