P. v. Thomas CA1/4
Antoine Thomas appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126, a provision of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 that was enacted pursuant to Proposition 36 (the Act or Proposition 36). Appellant contends the order must be reversed because the trial court’s finding that he poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety was legally flawed and factually unsupported.
Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to apply the legal standard for assessing dangerousness set forth in section 1170.18, subdivision (c), which was enacted pursuant to Proposition 47. We reject this contention in light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347 (Valencia). Alternatively, appellant contends the trial court erred by imposing the burden on him to prove that he is not currently dangerous. However, the record shows otherwise. Finally,
appellant contends th
Comments on P. v. Thomas CA1/4