Filed 7/16/15 P. v. Bates CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D065983
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD192318)
GILBERT JOSEPH BATES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J.
Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Carl Fabian, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Michael
Pulos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, Gilbert Joseph Bates pleaded guilty to one count of corporal injury to a
cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)),1 admitted
suffering two strike priors under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and stipulated
to a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment. The trial court imposed the stipulated
sentence, and Bates remains in prison. Following the approval of Proposition 36, Bates
petitioned the trial court to recall his sentence and resentence him as a second strike
offender. (§ 1170.126, subd. (b).) The trial court found Bates eligible for resentencing
under section 1170.126, subdivision (e), but it determined that resentencing Bates would
constitute an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" under subdivision (f) of that
section. The court therefore denied Bates's petition.
Bates appeals. He contends the trial court abused its discretion by finding that
resentencing Bates would constitute an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety."
(§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) He also contends the subsequent approval of Proposition 47,
which includes a specific definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety,"
requires that this case be remanded to the trial court for reconsideration under that new
definition. (See § 1170.18, subd. (c).)
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Bates's
resentencing would constitute an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety"
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 (§ 1170.126, subd. (f)), and the specific definition of that phrase in Proposition 47 does
not apply retroactively to Bates's petition.2 We therefore affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2005, at the time of the offense for which Bates is currently incarcerated, Bates
was in a relationship with Noemi Zermano. Bates and Zermano had an argument, and
Zermano told Bates to stay away from their shared apartment. Zermano was afraid of
Bates, and she had a friend stay with her. Bates came back to the apartment, entered
through a window, and chased Zermano. Bates caught Zermano, who held on to a fence
to try anchor herself. Bates grabbed Zermano by the neck and pulled her away from the
fence, breaking her little finger. Bates then dragged Zermano through a courtyard. When
she struggled, Bates threw Zermano over his shoulder and slammed her head onto the
concrete pavement. She lost consciousness. Bates continued to drag Zermano, causing a
large abrasion to her left side. In a rear parking lot, Bates strangled Zermano. She lost
consciousness again. When Zermano awoke, Bates continued to have his arm around her
neck. A neighbor attempted to calm Bates down, but he did not release Zermano until
police arrived. The police arrested Bates, and paramedics took Zermano to the hospital.
Bates was charged with one count of corporal injury to a cohabitant resulting in a
2 As we will explain, we assume, but explicitly do not decide, that Proposition 47's definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" applies to Proposition 36 petitions.
3 traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and two counts of false imprisonment by
violence, menace, fraud or deceit (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)).3
The prosecution alleged that Bates had suffered two strike priors under section
667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and two prison priors under section 667.5, subdivision
(b). These prior offenses occurred in 1996 and 2000. For the first strike and prison prior,
Bates was convicted of kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)) and sentenced to five years in
prison. Bates grabbed a former girlfriend, Jaime Lucero, while she attended a friend's
barbeque. Bates punched Lucero several times and dragged her to a waiting car. Bates
told Lucero " 'you are going to die today bitch.' " Bates drove Lucero to his grandfather's
house, where Bates again threatened Lucero. Several hours later, Lucero was able to
make a clandestine telephone call to police, who rescued her. For the second strike and
prison prior, Bates was convicted of making a criminal threat (§ 422) and sentenced to
four years in prison. Bates went to the workplace of his then-girlfriend, Leticia
Contreras, and accused Contreras of having sex with her boss. Bates chased Contreras,
who was pregnant at the time, and grabbed her. Bates pounded Contreras's head into a
bulletproof glass window three times. When Contreras's boss attempted to call the
police, Bates acted as if he had a gun and told Contreras and her boss he would kill them.
3 The facts in this paragraph are largely drawn from the probation report for Bates's offense.
4 Contreras's father arrived, and Bates dragged Contreras to the back of the building. Bates
became distracted, and Contreras escaped.4
Bates initially pleaded guilty to the 2005 charges based on the trial court's
indicated sentence of 12 years eight months' imprisonment. Upon further review,
however, the trial court determined it could not dismiss Bates's strike priors and
effectuate the indicated sentence. The trial court allowed Bates to withdraw his plea.
After further negotiations, Bates pled guilty to one count of corporal injury to a
cohabitant resulting in a traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), admitted suffering the
two strike priors discussed above, and stipulated to a sentence of 25 years to life
imprisonment. The trial court sentenced Bates accordingly.
Following the adoption of Proposition 36, Bates petitioned to recall his sentence
and for resentencing. Bates argued he was eligible for resentencing under section
1170.126, subdivision (e), and resentencing would not pose an unreasonable risk of
danger to public safety under subdivision (f) of that section. Bates contended his adult
criminal history was "relatively short." In addition to the current offense and the two
strikes discussed above, Bates had been convicted of misdemeanor interference with
telephone lines and sentenced to 45 days in jail. (§ 591.) In that incident, Bates and
Lucero (who was then Bates's girlfriend) began to argue. Bates threw a ketchup bottle at
4 The facts in this paragraph are largely drawn from the prosecution's opposition to Bates's petition for recall and resentencing in the trial court.
5 her. When Lucero attempted to call her mother, Bates pulled the telephone cord out of
the wall and headbutted her.5
In his petition, Bates argued that his disciplinary record while incarcerated had
been that of an "average" inmate. Bates had been involved in several fights and had been
found with a makeshift weapon in his cell. However, Bates had been discipline-free for
two years. He had received several laudatory chronos from corrections officers during
that time. His California Static Risk Assessment for potential reoffense was "low."
Bates also had completed a number of educational, religious, substance abuse and anger
management courses. Bates had been conditionally accepted to a number of post-
incarceration housing programs and had several conditional job offers.
Bates submitted a psychological evaluation prepared by Clark R. Clipson, Ph.D.
Clipson reviewed Bates's criminal and disciplinary records, analyzed the results of
several intelligence and personality tests, and performed a clinical interview of Bates.
Clipson diagnosed Bates with stimulant use disorder, alcohol use disorder, and
personality disorder. After reviewing Bates's risk factors, Clipson concluded that Bates
had a "low-moderate" risk of committing a violent offense in the future.
The district attorney opposed Bates's petition. The district attorney conceded
Bates was eligible for resentencing, but argued that resentencing would pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.126, subds. (e), (f).) The district
5 Bates also had a number of juvenile adjudications, including disturbing the peace, false identification to a police officer, and violating curfew and probation.
6 attorney pointed to the violence of Bates's crimes and his continued violent record while
in prison. For example, from 2006 through 2011, Bates was found guilty of possessing
an inmate-manufactured weapon, participating in a race riot requiring use of force,
battery on an inmate without a weapon requiring the use of force, refusing to obey lawful
orders which resulted in cell extraction without force, and fighting (three times).
At the hearing on Bates's petition, the court heard argument from counsel. The
court explained, "I want to make it clear that after a complete review of this record, I am
well aware that I'm not making a decision solely based upon the historical figure [Gilbert]
Bates as he existed at the time of the sentencing. It is Gilbert Bates who at the time of
sentencing represented a certain risk to society and then the Gilbert Bates now as
understood better through his behavior in the institution, through the efforts that he has
made to rehabilitate himself and the Gilbert Bates as presented in the psychological
evaluation that has been presented to me. [¶] This is not a case that I have decided
lightly. I read this several times, and I have listened carefully to the arguments so as to
hopefully put my understanding of what I read into a proper context."
The court found that resentencing Bates would pose an unreasonable risk of
danger to public safety under section 1170.126, subdivision (f), and denied Bates's
petition. Bates appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
"Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, was approved by the
voters in the November 6, 2012 General Election. Sections 667 and 1170.12 were
7 amended and section 1170.126 was enacted." (People v. Jernigan (2014) 227
Cal.App.4th 1198, 1203.) Among other things, Proposition 36 " 'created a postconviction
release proceeding whereby a prisoner who is serving an indeterminate life sentence
imposed pursuant to the three strikes law for a crime that is not a serious or violent felony
and who is not disqualified, may have his or her sentence recalled and be sentenced as a
second strike offender unless the court determines that resentencing would pose an
unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.126.)' " (Jernigan, at pp. 1203-
1204; see People v. Johnson (July 2, 2015, S219454, S219819) ___ Cal.4th __ [2015 Cal.
Lexis 4521, p. *9].)
Proposition 36 provides that if a petitioner is eligible for resentencing, "the
petitioner shall be resentenced . . . 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).) "In exercising its discretion in subdivision (f), the court may
consider: [¶] (1) The petitioner's criminal conviction history, including the type of
crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments,
and the remoteness of the crimes; [¶] (2) The petitioner's disciplinary record and record
of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and [¶] (3) Any other evidence the court, within its
discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in
an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." (§ 1170.126, subd. (g); see People v.
Brown (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1510.)
"The meaning of 'unreasonable risk of danger to public safety' is made clear by
reference to the examples of evidence the trial court may consider in making this
8 determination. To determine unreasonable risk, the trial court may consider any relevant
evidence, including a defendant's criminal conviction history and record of discipline and
rehabilitation while incarcerated." (People v. Garcia (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 763, 769
(Garcia).) "The critical inquiry, however, is not whether the risk is quantifiable, but
rather, whether the risk would be 'unreasonable.' " (Ibid.) "[A] court's discretionary
decision to decline to modify the sentence in his favor can be based on any otherwise
appropriate factor (i.e., dangerousness), and such factor need not be established by proof
beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury." (People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215
Cal.App.4th 1279, 1303.) Instead, the standard of proof for the prosecution to prove that
resentencing a petitioner under Proposition 36 would pose an unreasonable risk of danger
to public safety is preponderance of the evidence. (Id. at p. 1305.)
Proposition 36 expressly vests the trial court with discretion to determine whether
resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
(§ 1170.126, subds. (f), (g).) We therefore review an order denying resentencing on that
basis for abuse of discretion. (See People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1124
(Rodrigues).) "Where, as here, a discretionary power is statutorily vested in the trial
court, its exercise of that discretion 'must not be disturbed on appeal except on a showing
that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner
that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.' " (Ibid.)
Bates has not shown the trial court abused its discretion by denying Bates's
petition on the grounds resentencing him would present an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety. Bates's crimes, primarily perpetrated against women with whom he had a
9 relationship, involved willful and prolonged episodes of intense violence. Bates's current
offense, from 2005, caused his victim to lose consciousness twice (from slamming her
head into the pavement and from strangulation), to suffer a large abrasion on her left side
(from dragging her through a concrete parking lot), and to break her little finger (from
pulling her off a fence that she had grabbed to resist Bates's aggression). Bates's first
strike, from 1996, involved kidnapping a former girlfriend, punching her multiple times,
and telling her " 'you are going to die today bitch.' " Bates's second strike, from 2000,
also involved death threats, this time against Bates's then-current girlfriend. Bates went
to her workplace, pounded the victim's head against a bulletproof glass window three
times, and dragged her to the back of the building. The trial court was entitled to
consider these crimes, and their viciousness, in determining whether resentencing Bates
would present an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (§ 1170.126, subd. (g)(1).)
The trial court was also entitled to consider Bates's mixed record in prison.
(§ 1170.126, subd. (g)(2).) For much of his time in prison for the current offense, Bates
repeatedly violated prison rules, including for violent acts of fighting and battery. From
2006 through 2011, Bates was found guilty of possessing an inmate-manufactured
weapon, participating in a race riot requiring use of force, battery on an inmate without a
weapon requiring the use of force, refusing to obey lawful orders which resulted in cell
extraction without force, and fighting (three times). While his last two years were
discipline-free, and he had obtained several laudatory chronos and participated in
rehabilitation, Bates's counsel in the trial court could only describe him as an "average"
inmate.
10 Proposition 36 vests the trial court with the discretion to determine whether
resentencing Bates would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
(§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) Given the evidence we have discussed, the trial court did not act
" 'in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest
miscarriage of justice' " when it found that resentencing Bates would pose such an
unreasonable risk. (See Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1124.) The court did not abuse
its discretion by denying Bates's petition.
Bates criticizes the trial court for not stating reasons for its finding that
resentencing Bates would pose an unreasonable risk. But Bates does not contend the
statute at issue here, or any applicable rule of court, required a statement of reasons. We
likewise see no such requirement. The Supreme Court's decision in People v. Lock
(1981) 30 Cal.3d 454, 459, cited by Bates, is therefore inapposite.
Bates focuses on the report of his psychologist, who opined that Bates had a "low-
moderate" risk of committing a violent offense in the future. Bates contends that the
question on which his expert opined, Bates's risk of reoffense, was the same question the
court was required to consider under section 1170.126, subdivision (f). The trial court,
however, was not required to accept the opinion of Bates's expert. "The fact finder
determines the facts, not the experts. Indeed, the fact finder may reject even 'a unanimity
of expert opinion. "To hold otherwise would be in effect to substitute a trial by 'experts'
for a trial by jury . . . ." ' " (In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 823.) The same principle
applies here. The trial court, not Bates's expert, was vested with the discretion to
determine whether Bates's resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to
11 public safety. (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) To find an abuse of discretion simply because the
trial court gave little weight to Bates's expert's opinion would effectively eliminate the
trial court's discretion. "Although experts may testify about their opinions, the fact finder
decides what weight to give those opinions. This is especially important when the
witnesses are not neutral court-appointed experts but experts hired by a party specifically
seeking evidence supporting that party's position." (In re Scott, at p. 823.) Bates's
contentions based on the prosecutor's comments are likewise unpersuasive because we
review the trial court's order, not the prosecutor's stated reasons for opposing Bates's
petition.
Bates also points to evidence of his rehabilitation, including insight into his
crimes, while in prison. But, as we have discussed, the trial court was entitled to weigh
this evidence against other factors bearing on the risk of danger to public safety in
resentencing Bates, including the facts of his prior crimes and his disciplinary history in
prison. (§ 1170.126, subd. (g); see Garcia, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 769.) The trial
court did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner by "rejecting" Bates's evidence of
rehabilitation (or his expert's evidence), as Bates contends. The court was entitled to give
this evidence the weight it saw fit.6 Similarly, the trial court was not required to credit
6 We likewise disagree with Bates's contention that the trial court's order rests solely on "static" evidence concerning the nature of Bates's crimes. Additional evidence supported the order, as we have discussed, including Bates's disciplinary history while in prison. Similarly, we disagree with Bates's argument on reply that the Attorney General has tacitly conceded the court abused its discretion because the Attorney General did not address Bates's evidence of rehabilitation. In her opposition, the Attorney General set forth the evidence Bates contended supported his petition. The Attorney General then 12 Bates's interpretation of his prison disciplinary history which, in his view, demonstrated
that Bates was targeted for violence for various reasons and was not predominantly the
aggressor. In light of all the evidence, including the evidence cited by Bates, the trial
court's finding that resentencing Bates would present an unreasonable risk of danger to
public safety was reasonable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Bates's petition.
II
"On November 4, 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47, 'the Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Act' . . . , which went into effect the next day." (People v.
Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1089 (Rivera).) "Proposition 47 makes certain
drug- and theft-related offenses misdemeanors, unless the offenses were committed by
certain ineligible defendants. These offenses had previously been designated as either
felonies or wobblers (crimes that can be punished as either felonies or misdemeanors)."
(Id. at p. 1091.) "Proposition 47 also created a new resentencing provision: section
1170.18. Under section 1170.18, a person 'currently serving' a felony sentence for an
offense that is now a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, may petition for a recall of that
sentence and request resentencing in accordance with the statutes that were added or
amended by Proposition 47. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).)" (Id. at p. 1092.)
addressed Bates's argument that evidence of his rehabilitation demonstrated his resentencing would not present an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. We perceive no concession by the Attorney General.
13 In an manner analogous to Proposition 36, "[a] person who satisfies the criteria in
section 1170.18 shall have his or her sentence recalled and be 'resentenced to a
misdemeanor . . . unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the
petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.' (§ 1170.18,
subd. (b).)" (Rivera, supra, 233 Cal.App.4th at p. 1092.)
In contrast to Proposition 36, however, Proposition 47 provides a specific
definition of the phrase "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." Among the
provisions added by Proposition 47 is the following: "As used throughout this Code,
'unreasonable risk of danger to public safety' means an unreasonable risk that the
petitioner will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of clause (iv) of
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667." (§ 1170.18,
subd. (c).) The "new violent felony" offenses referenced in this provision include a
narrow class of violent felonies, colloquially called "super strike offenses." (See § 667,
subd. (e)(2)(C)(iv).)
Bates contends that the definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety"
contained in Proposition 47 applies to petitions filed under Proposition 36. He interprets
the language "[a]s used throughout this Code" (§ 1170.18, subd. (c)) as evidencing an
intent to apply the Proposition 47 definition to Proposition 36 as well. Bates further
contends that he is entitled to the benefit of this new definition even though the court
denied his Proposition 36 petition before Proposition 47 became effective.
We need not decide the question whether the Proposition 47 definition of
"unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" applies to petitions under Proposition 36.
14 Even assuming, without deciding, that the definition does apply, we conclude the
definition does not apply retroactively to petitions under Proposition 36, like Bates's, that
the trial court heard and decided prior to the effective date of Proposition 47.7
"Whether a statute operates prospectively or retroactively is, at least in the first
instance, a matter of legislative intent. When the Legislature has not made its intent on
the matter clear with respect to a particular statute, the Legislature's generally applicable
declaration in section 3 provides the default rule: 'No part of [the Penal Code] is
retroactive, unless expressly so declared.' [The Supreme Court has] described section 3,
and its identical counterparts in other codes (e.g., Civ. Code, § 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 3),
as codifying 'the time-honored principle . . . that in the absence of an express retroactivity
provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it is very clear from extrinsic
7 Both issues raised by Bates, regarding the applicability and retroactivity of Proposition 47's definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety," are currently pending before the Supreme Court. (People v. Valencia (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 514, review granted Feb. 18, 2014, S223825 [applicability]; People v. Chaney (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1391, review granted Feb. 18, 2015, S223676 [retroactivity].) This court recently decided a related issue regarding the retroactivity of the substantive provisions of Proposition 47 that reduce certain felony offenses to misdemeanors. (People v. DeHoyos (June 30, 2015, D065961) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2015 Cal.App. Lexis 582].) In DeHoyos, this court determined that ballot materials and other indicia of the electorate's intent showed that the electorate intended those provisions to operate only prospectively. (Id. at p. *5.) Because DeHoyos did not consider Proposition 47's definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety," DeHoyos's analysis, while informative, does not apply directly to the question presented in this case.
15 sources that the Legislature . . . must have intended a retroactive application.' " (People
v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314, 319 (Brown).)8
The same general rule applies to statutes, like Proposition 47, enacted through the
initiative process: "It is well settled that a new statute is presumed to operate
prospectively absent an express declaration of retrospectivity or a clear indication that the
electorate, or the Legislature, intended otherwise." (Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53
Cal.3d 282, 287, italics added (Tapia).) The rule likewise applies where, as here, the new
statute becomes effective while the judgment or order is on appeal, and is therefore not
final. (People v. Gonzalez (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 724, 736 (Gonzalez) [statute enacted
while appeal pending not retroactive].)
In In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada), the Supreme Court discussed a
significant exception to this general rule disfavoring retroactivity. The court held that,
under certain circumstances, an implied legislative intent in favor of retroactivity may be
found: "When the Legislature amends a statute so as to lessen the punishment it has
obviously expressly determined that its former penalty was too severe and that a lighter
punishment is proper as a punishment for the commission of the prohibited act. It is an
inevitable inference that the Legislature must have intended that the new statute imposing
the new lighter penalty now deemed to be sufficient should apply to every case to which
8 The rules governing the retroactivity of statutory enactments differ from the rules applicable to judicial decisions: " 'Unlike statutory enactments, judicial decisions . . . are generally applied retroactively.' " (People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 732, fn. 4; see People v. Guerra (1984) 37 Cal.3d 385, 399-402 [discussing retroactivity in the context of judicial decisions].)
16 it constitutionally could apply. The amendatory act imposing the lighter punishment can
be applied constitutionally to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment
convicting the defendant of the act is not final. This intent seems obvious, because to
hold otherwise would be to conclude that the Legislature was motivated by a desire for
vengeance, a conclusion not permitted in view of modern theories of penology." (Id. at
p. 745.)
In Brown, the Supreme Court explained its current understanding of Estrada's
effect on the general rule disfavoring retroactivity. Estrada "supports an important,
contextually specific qualification to the ordinary presumption that statutes operate
prospectively: When the Legislature has amended a statute to reduce the punishment for
a particular criminal offense, we will assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the
Legislature intended the amended statute to apply to all defendants whose judgments are
not yet final on the statute's operative date." (Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 323,
fn. omitted.) The Supreme Court emphasized that ". . . Estrada is today properly
understood, not as weakening or modifying the default rule of prospective operation
codified in section 3, but rather as informing the rule's application in a specific context by
articulating the reasonable presumption that a legislative act mitigating the punishment
for a particular criminal offense is intended to apply to all nonfinal judgments." (Brown,
at p. 324.)
Bates does not point to any portion of Proposition 47 that expressly provides that
its definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" should apply
17 retroactively.9 The ordinary presumption against retroactivity therefore applies. (§ 3;
Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 324; Tapia, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 287.) Even if
Proposition 47 were ambiguous regarding retroactivity, it would normally be construed to
be unambiguously prospective. (See Brown, at p. 324.)
Bates therefore relies on the Estrada exception. Bates argues that Proposition 47's
definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" is "indisputably a more
lenient standard of dangerousness" because it limits the trial court to an assessment of the
petitioner's likelihood of committing a specified class of violent felonies. (See § 1170.18,
subd. (c).) Because, in Bates's view, this new definition benefits him, he argues that
Estrada requires its retroactive application to his petition.
We disagree that the Estrada exception should apply here. Brown made clear that
Estrada applied where the newly-enacted statute was " ' "[a] legislative mitigation of the
penalty for a particular crime" ' " such that, absent a desire for " ' "vengeance," ' " the
Legislature must have intended retroactive application. (Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at
p. 324, quoting Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 745.) Neither of these circumstances
apply to the statute at issue here.
First, Proposition 47's new definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public
safety" is not a "legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime." (Estrada,
supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 745; see Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 324.) Proposition 47's
9 We reiterate that our holding rests on the assumption that Proposition 47's definition applies to petitions under Proposition 36. We explicitly do not decide that question because it is unnecessary to our decision. 18 definition does not address punishments or penalties at all. Instead, it provides a specific
definition for courts to apply in assessing the unreasonableness of the danger to public
safety that resentencing a petitioner like Bates would create. Nor is the definition limited
to a particular crime. The definition would apply across a large class of petitioners who
have been convicted of any number of nonserious and nonviolent felonies. (See
§ 1170.126, subd. (b) [defining eligibility for Proposition 36 relief as any three-strike
offender who was convicted "of a felony or felonies that are not defined as serious and/or
violent felonies"].)
Second, applying Proposition 47's definition only prospectively would not
engender the same concerns over vengeance that motivated the Estrada court. (Estrada,
supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 745; see Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 324.) Estrada explained
that " '[a] legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a
legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet
the legitimate ends of the criminal law.' " (Estrada, at p. 745.) Upholding a harsher
penalty, when the Legislature has impliedly determined that such a penalty no longer
serves a penological goal when applied to a defendant's crime, would serve no legitimate
purpose according to Estrada: " 'Nothing is to be gained by imposing the more severe
penalty after such a pronouncement; the excess in punishment can, by hypothesis, serve
no purpose other than to satisfy a desire for vengeance.' " (Ibid.) Because Proposition
47's definition of dangerousness to public safety does not prescribe a new penalty for any
particular crime, it did not create any " 'excess in punishment' " that would raise concerns
over vengeance. (Estrada, at p. 745.) On the contrary, Proposition 47 simply narrowed
19 the discretion given trial courts to determine whether Bates's resentencing would
constitute an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. It did not declare, expressly or
impliedly, that Bates's current sentence would serve no purpose other than a desire for
vengeance.
Contrary to Bates's contention, not all statutes that benefit a defendant fall within
the Estrada exception. Brown expressly rejected the argument that the Estrada exception
"should be understood to apply more broadly to any statute that reduces punishment in
any manner." (Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 325; see Gonzalez, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th
at p. 735.) As Brown explained, "We do not take issue with the proposition that a
convicted prisoner who is released a day early is punished a day less. But, as we have
explained, the rule and logic of Estrada is specifically directed to a statute that represents
' "a legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime" ' (Estrada, [supra, 63
Cal.2d] at p. 745, italics added) because such a law supports the inference that the
Legislature would prefer to impose the new, shorter penalty rather than to ' "satisfy a
desire for vengeance" ' (ibid.)." (Brown, at p. 325.) This situation is not presented here.
As Bates points out, the Estrada exception has been applied in numerous contexts
where the punishment for a particular crime has been lightened, the elements of proof
required to convict a defendant of a particular crime have been broadened, or the
defenses available to a defendant for a particular crime have been expanded. (See People
v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 94-95; People v. Babylon (1985) 39 Cal.3d 719, 722;
People v. Rossi (1976) 18 Cal.3d 295, 299-302; People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th
1532, 1544-1546.) However, these authorities are inapplicable because they predate the
20 Supreme Court's interpretation of Estrada in Brown and because Proposition 47's
definitional change does not fall into these categories where Estrada has previously been
applied.
We therefore conclude that even assuming, without deciding, that Proposition 47's
definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" applies to petitions under
Proposition 36, the new definition in Proposition 47 should not apply retroactively here,
where Bates's petition under Proposition 36 was heard and decided before the effective
date of Proposition 47. In light of this conclusion, we need not consider whether Bates
was prejudiced because the trial court did not use Proposition 47's definition. We also
need not consider the Attorney General's alternative argument that Bates is not eligible
for resentencing under Proposition 36 because he intended to cause great bodily injury
during the commission of his current offense. (See §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.12,
subd. (c)(2)(C)(iii), 1170.126, subd. (e)(2).)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
MCDONALD, J.