legal news

Home |  Link Directory |  Forum |  Gallery |  Cases |  CA Discovery Law

Register | Forgot Password
Search Members New Articles
  1. Fear Not Law Articles
  2. CA Unpub Decisions
  3. P. v. Mallett
  4. Comments on P. v. Mallett

P. v. Mallett
In defendant Clyde Lee Mallett’s original appeal from his conviction for possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), we rejected his contention that his sentence of 28 years to life under the “Three Strikes” law constituted cruel and unusual punishment. However, we conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the matter to the superior court with directions to conduct another in camera hearing on defendant’s Pitchess[1] motion and to create a record of the files reviewed. (People v. Mallett (Dec. 22, 2011, G045094) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court held the in camera hearing and found no discoverable information. The court then reinstated the judgment. Defendant again appeals and asks that we independently review the in camera hearing to determine whether the trial court properly denied his Pitchess motion. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no discoverable material in the officers’ personnel files.
Defendant also argues he is entitled to be resentenced under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act), enacted as part of Proposition 36, because his conviction was not final at the time the Reform Act became effective and the offense for which he was convicted is neither a serious nor violent felony. The Reform Act amended the Three Strikes law to generally require a new felony offense (the commitment offense) must be a serious or violent felony before a defendant may be sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in state prison under the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A), (C), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A), (C); all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) The Attorney General counters that defendant was serving an indeterminate life term under the Three Strikes law at the time
the Reform Act was enacted and must therefore petition the trial court to recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126, also enacted a

Post Reply
Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale