 |
please contact the Webmaster
Support the Badge
Return to Home Page
|
|||
| Home | Articles | Book Page | Links | Mike's Corner | Search | Studies | Contact Us | |||
| The penalty reductions described above would apply to new crimes committed after the effective date of the initiative (November 3, 2004). The penalty reductions of the initiative will also apply retroactively to felons whose current crime pre-dates the effective date of the initiative. Moreover, (and this is significant) the penalty reductions of the initiative will apply retroactively to felons who are now serving prison terms under "Three Strikes." | |||
| Any prisoner who is now serving a "Three Strikes" sentence would be entitled as a matter of right: (1) to be returned from prison to the commitment county; (2) to the appointment of an attorney at public expense; and (3) to be re-sentenced as if the penalty reductions of the initiative had been law when he or she was originally sentenced. This retroactive effect of the initiative will not be limited to "Three Strikes" prisoners serving life terms - it will apply to all prisoners serving "Three Strikes" sentences, including those who are serving doubled determinate "two strike" terms. | |||
| The initiative will apply retroactively to all existing "Three Strikes" prisoners, not just life term prisoners, because Section 11 of the initiative provides that "[a]ny individual sentenced under the prior three strikes law, including, but not limited to, Penal Code section 667, subdivision (e)(2), Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2), and/or section 707 of the welfare and institutions code for an enhanced conviction that would not qualify for enhancement under this statute, shall qualify for re-sentencing and be remanded to the court of origin for re-sentencing." [emphasis added] | |||
| Even though the initiative contains provisions that seem to limit the right to re-sentencing to life term prisoners, the "rule of lenity" that applies to construction of penal statutes requires that ambiguities in a statute be resolved in favor of criminal defendants. Guillory v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal4th 168, 177. Internal conflicts in a statute produce ambiguity in the meaning of the statute. Because of the "rule of lenity," courts would be required to interpret the language of Section 11 of the initiative to require that all "Three Strikes" prisoners be eligible for re-sentencing, even those who are serving doubled determinate terms as "two strikers." | |||
| Next Page | |||
| If you have any problems with this site please contact the Webmaster |
|||
Support the Badge Return to Home Page |