Does section 1192.7(c)(7) of the California Three Strikes Act, or does the Attorney General's interpretation of section 667.5(c))(7(b)(7)?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Thomas, 21 Cal.4th 1122, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 642, 988 P.2d 563 (Cal. 1999):

Moreover, section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(7) (section 1192.7(c)(7)), includes as a "serious" felony, "[a]ny felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life." (Italics added.) As can be seen, this language parallels the language at issue in section 667.5(c)(7). If we were to interpret section 667.5(c)(7) to mean a third strike defendant falls within its purview because of his life sentence, not because of the underlying offense, a similar interpretation would necessarily obtain for section 1192.7(c)(7). "Under the three strikes law, a trial court must sentence a defendant with two or more qualifying prior felony convictions or strikes to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment." (People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 552, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 423, 941 P.2d 56.) A third strike would by definition, therefore, always qualify as a serious or violent offense.

The plain language of the three strikes law and our cases interpreting it compel the opposite result. In People v. Dotson, supra, 16 Cal.4th 547, 66 Cal. Rptr.2d 423, 941 P.2d 56, for example, this court observed that "the defendant's current felony need not be `serious' for the three strikes law to apply," and distinguished between "a recidivist who committed a serious third strike felony" and one "who committed a non serious third strike felony." (Id. at p. 555, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 423, 941 P.2d 56, original italics; ["`It is certainly appropriate to punish more harshly those'" three strikes defendants "`convicted of new serious felonies'" than those whose most recent felony is not serious.].) Were the Attorney General's interpretation of section 667.5(c)(7) correct, this distinction would be nonsensical.

Other Questions


How has Section 1192.7(c)(31) of the California Three Strikes Law interpreted the meaning of section 245(a)(1) in the context of serious felonies? (California, United States of America)
Does section 667 of the California Criminal Code prohibit the District Attorney from invoking section 654 of the Criminal Code to strike a prior conviction enhancement under Section 667? (California, United States of America)
Is a city's interpretation of a section of the California Civil Code interpreted in the context of an administrative agency's interpretation? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for dismissing a strike under section 1385 of the California Three Strikes? (California, United States of America)
What is the Attorney General's interpretation of a section of the California Civil Code that states that a defendant has been denied credits on appeal? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General's sentencing error under section 667.5, subdivision (a) of the California Criminal Code apply to recidivism enhancements under sections 667 and 667 of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General have the authority to grant probation under section 1203.066, subdivision (c) of the California Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the meaning of section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iii) of the three strikes law? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General have any authority to strike a prior conviction for Three Strikes? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.