P. v. Chavez CA4/3
George Chavez was convicted of possessing a controlled substance in jail and was sentenced to 25 years to life imprisonment under the Three Strikes Law. He filed a petition under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.126, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code) for resentencing. On appeal, he maintains the court abused its discretion in denying his petition due to insufficiency of the evidence. While the appeal was pending, our Supreme Court issued the opinion People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347 (Valencia), holding Proposition 36 was not amended by provisions contained in Proposition 47. The opinion is relevant here because the trial court in this case applied Proposition 47’s definitions to Chavez’s Proposition 36 resentencing proceedings. “An abuse of discretion is shown when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard. [Citation.]” (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 (Costco).) Afte
Comments on P. v. Chavez CA4/3