People v. Conriquez CA5

California Court of Appeal Apr 11, 2016 No. F070408Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an inmate convicted of possession of a weapon in prison is ineligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act if the record contains substantial evidence that the specific item possessed constitutes a deadly weapon.

Issues

Whether a conviction for possession of a weapon by an inmate under Penal Code section 4502(a) automatically disqualifies an inmate from resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act.
Whether the record contained substantial evidence that the item possessed by the defendant was a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iii).

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the question in this case, and all such cases, is whether the record contains substantial evidence that the actual item found in Conriquez’s possession and which formed the basis for his conviction was a deadly weapon”

“The item recovered was a 3½ long metal blade shaped like a knife and sharpened to a point at one end. There is no doubt this item could be used to injure or kill another individual”

Filed 4/11/16 P. v. Conriquez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070408 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SF013296A) v.

JIMMY CONRIQUEZ, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. James Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.

Jimmy Conriquez, Jr. petitioned the trial court to be resentenced pursuant to the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). The trial court denied the petition finding Conriquez was ineligible under Penal Code section 1170.126.1 Conriquez argues the trial court’s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm the order denying the petition. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Conriquez filed a petition asserting he was eligible for resentencing pursuant to the provisions of section 1170.126. In his petition Conriquez asserts he was convicted in 2007 of a violation of section 4502, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 4502(a)), possession by an inmate of a dirk, dagger or sharp instrument while incarcerated. He was sentenced to a third strike sentence of 25 years to life. The district attorney opposed the petition. The trial court found Conriquez was ineligible for resentencing because the conviction for which he was seeking to be resentenced involved the use of a deadly weapon. DISCUSSION Section 1170.126, enacted as part of the Act, defines those eligible for resentencing as inmates serving an indeterminate third strike sentence, and (1) not serving a sentence for a crime that is listed as a serious or violent felony (§§ 667.5, subd. (c) and 1192.7, subd. (c)); (2) not serving a sentence for a crime that is listed in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C), clauses (i) through (iii), or section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(C), clauses (i) through (iii); and (3) not having a prior conviction for an offense appearing in section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C), clause (iv), or section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2)(C), clause (iv). (§ 1170.126, subd. (e).)

People v. Conriquez CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief