P. v. Kaulick CA2/3
This is defendant Steven Joseph Kaulick’s second appeal arising out of his petition for resentencing of his three strikes conviction (Pen. Code, § 1170.126, enacted as part of the Three Strikes Reform Act (Proposition 36)). (See People v. Kaulick (Jan. 4, 2017, B265040 [nonpub.]) (Kaulick I).) In Kaulick I, we reversed the trial court’s order denying Kaulick’s petition for resentencing after concluding the court erred in applying a “preponderance of the evidence,” as opposed to a “beyond a reasonable doubt,” standard of proof to find Kaulick intended to inflict great bodily injury during his third-strike offense, a finding that rendered him ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 36. We remanded the matter to allow the court to apply the correct standard of proof in determining whether Kaulick was eligible for resentencing.
On remand, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Kaulick intended to inflict great bodily injury on the victim of his third-strike
Comments on P. v. Kaulick CA2/3