In what circumstances will a defendant be denied a reprieve under section 1170.126 of the California Criminal Code?

In the alternative, defendant argues that the rule of lenity should apply here. "'That rule generally requires that "ambiguity in a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of lenity, giving the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt on questions of interpretation. But ... 'that rule applies "only if two reasonable interpretations of the statute stand in relative equipoise." [Citation.]' [Citations.]" [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Nuckles (2013) 56 Cal.4th 601, 611.) The rule does not apply in every situation, but "'"'only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended; there must be an egregious ambiguity and uncertainty to justify invoking the rule.'" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Ibid.) We see no "egregious ambiguity" or uncertainty here. Both the language of section 1170.126 and the stated goals of the Act support the conclusion that the superior court must consider all current felonies in determining eligibility for recall of sentence. The rule of lenity does not compel a different result.

Page 10

We conclude the superior court correctly found that defendant was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.126.⁶

The judgment is affirmed.