239 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 593 times
Holding that under Proposition 47 the petitioner has the "burden of showing that he or she is eligible for resentencing of what was an otherwise valid sentence"
Holding that the Three Strikes sentencing scheme applied in addition to other sentencing enhancements because the phrase "notwithstanding any other law" was unambiguous
237 Cal.App.4th 868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 215 times
In People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, the court reached a constitutional overbreadth argument despite the defendant's failure to object in the trial court, but noted the review was appropriate because it did not require reference to the record.
Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22
In People v. Williams (2013) 57 Cal.4th 776 (Williams), the California Supreme Court explained that "theft by false pretenses, unlike larceny, has no requirement of asportation.
In People v. King (2006) 38 Cal.4th 617, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 133 P.3d 636 (King), our Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General's argument that instruments coming within that section never could be possessed lawfully.
Reasoning that “[i]f there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and [the Court] need not resort to legislative history to determine the statute's true meaning”