California v. Bradford
Annotate this Case
Defendant-appellant Reginald Bradford was convicted by a jury of three counts of second degree burglary and four counts of petty theft with a prior. The offenses were based on incidents in which Bradford took merchandise from various stores. The jury acquitted him of robbery. The trial court found he had five prior felony convictions for which he had served prison terms, including two residential burglaries that were strikes under the three strikes law. Bradford received four consecutive terms of 25 years to life pursuant to the three strikes law, and an additional four years for the enhancements. He appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Following the enactment of Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, Bradford filed a petition to recall the sentence and for resentencing. The trial court denied the petition, finding him ineligible for relief based on a statutory exclusion that applied if a firearm or other deadly weapon was involved in the commission of the underlying charge. The question this case presented on appeal was whether the trial court erred in finding defendant ineligible for resentencing based on evidence he had a pair of wire cutters at or near the time defendant committed the burglaries/thefts. The Court of Appeal found the trial court's conclusion that the wire cutters were a deadly weapon and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.