P. v. Bamber CA1/4
Appellant Robert Bamber argues the trial court improperly denied his petition for resentencing under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act. Bamber contends the trial court must apply the standard for dangerousness articulated in Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. After the parties’ briefs were submitted, our Supreme Court decided People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347 (Valencia), which held that Proposition 47’s definition of unreasonable risk of danger to public safety does not apply to resentencing under Proposition 36.
Under the less restrictive definition in Proposition 36, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bamber’s petition because he would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. We affirm.
Comments on P. v. Bamber CA1/4