California v. Valdez

In 2001, defendant Emigdio Valdez was convicted of possession of a sharp instrument in prison and assault by an inmate by means likely to cause great bodily injury. The trial court found true three prior strike allegations, for which the trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of 25 years to life on each count. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition for recall of sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. As to each conviction, defendant argued: (1) the trial court was not authorized to make findings of fact and the State was required to plead and prove any disqualifying facts in the prosecution of his commitment offense; (2) substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s determinations regarding his ineligibility; and (3) the trial court employed the wrong standard of proof, in that it should have applied the “clear and convincing evidence” standard rather than the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. In the published part of this opinion the Court of Appeal concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that defendant was “armed” with the sharp instrument in prison. In the unpublished parts of this opinion, the Court rejected defendant’s other contentions. View "California v. Valdez" on Justia Law