California v. Hicks
Annotate this CaseIn 2008, a trial court sentenced defendant Tyrea Hicks to 25 years to life in prison under the three strikes law for being a felon in possession of a firearm and a concurrent sentence of 25 years to life (that was later stayed by the Court of Appeal) for being a felon in possession of ammunition, after a jury had found defendant guilty of those crimes. In 2012, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 20121 (the Act). The trial court denied the petition, finding that the facts as recited in the appellate court opinion from defendant’s 2008 three strikes’ conviction, defendant was armed with a firearm when he committed the felon in possession of a firearm offense. Defendant moved for reconsideration, arguing arguing it was error for the court to “restrict itself solely to a few limited facts” from the appellate opinion. He further argued that the arming enhancement had never been pled or proven with respect to the felon-in-possession charge and that he was not, in fact, armed, and pointed the court to evidence in the appellate court opinion that arguably showed he was not armed. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration. Defendant appealed the denial of his resentencing petition contending: (1) it was an appealable order; (2) if not, his appeal should have been treated as a petition for writ of mandate; and (3) the trial court improperly denied the petition for resentencing based on the fact that he was armed with a firearm during the commission of his felon-in-possession offense because (a) the felon-in-possession offense is not one of the disqualifying offenses to which an arming may be attached; (b) no sentence was “imposed” for his arming; and (c) the court improperly relied on the statement of facts in the appellate opinion to support its factual finding that he was armed. In "Teal v. Superior Court" ___ Cal.4th ___ (2014), the California Supreme Court concluded decisions under the “Three Strikes Reform Act” were appealable orders. Otherwise, the Court of Appeal affirmed.
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.