Despite a ballot initiative, the Court found that judges can decline to reduce sentences.
California is tough on crime, and perhaps is best known for its “three strikes” law. This law mandates that anyone who commits certain crimes repeatedly be sentenced to a term of 25 years to life.
In 2012, the state’s voters approved Proposition 36, a balloon measure that was designed to allow inmates who had “three strikes” to obtain sentence reductions if their third strike was not serious or violent. Under this initiative, judges could refuse to reduce the sentence if they believed that an inmate posed an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety,” based on an inmate’s history, disciplinary record in prison or other evidence. In 2014, California voters then passed Proposition 47, which created a definition of a safety risk that judges were obligated to apply. Under this analysis, inmates could only be denied a sentence reduction only if they were deemed to pose an unreasonable risk of committing certain crimes, including murder, sexually violent offenses or other serious or violent felony offenses.
However, this month, the California Supreme Court found that this definition from Proposition 47 does not apply to anyone sentenced under California’s three strike rule. In the People v. Valencia, the California Supreme Court held that if the definition were applied to people who were convicted under the three strike rule, it would “result in the release of more recidivist serious and/or violent offenders than had been originally contemplated under Proposition 36.” The Court was concerned that voters who had approved Proposition 36 to allow for some three strike offenders to be released if their third strike was non-violent did not truly understand the language of Proposition 47. Under Proposition 47, even violent offenders could be released early, as long as they did not present an “unreasonable risk” of committing certain violent crimes.
This ruling is certainly disappointing for many criminal justice reform advocates, and for anyone currently in prison under California’s harsh three strikes rule. However, it is important to note that the ruling does not change Proposition 36. Anyone convicted under California’s three strikes law whose third strike was for a non-violent crime may still be eligible for a sentence reduction. A California criminal defense lawyer can assist you if you believe that you may be eligible to have your sentence reduced.
In addition, Proposition 47 still applies to offenders who have not been convicted under the three strikes rule. If you are currently serving a prison term in California and have not been sentenced under the three strikes law, you may be eligible for a sentencing reduction. Contact a skilled California criminal defense lawyer to learn more about your options.
At the Chambers Law Firm, we keep on top of the latest legal developments so that we can best serve our clients. Contact us today at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com to learn more about sentencing reductions or to schedule a free initial consultation.
