Schinkel, Jr. v. Super. Ct.
Annotate this Case
Defendant-petitioner Larry Steven Schinkel, Jr. had prior strike convictions (specifically, he had six prior burglary convictions), when he engaged in sexual intercourse with a minor. After he was arrested on the charges related to the minor, he solicited another inmate to have the minor killed so that she could not testify against him. Convicted of four counts of sexual intercourse with a minor and solicitation of murder, defendant was eventually sentenced under the Three Strikes law to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for solicitation of murder with two consecutive 25-year-to-life terms for two of the sexual intercourse counts, for an aggregate term of 75 years to life. Two 25-year-to-life terms for the other sexual intercourse counts were imposed concurrently. In November 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, amending 667 and 1170.12 (relating to Three Strikes sentencing) and added section 1170.126 (relating to resentencing of defendants previously sentenced under the Three Strikes law). Defendant, representing himself, filed a petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act. Without a hearing, the court denied the petition. The court held that defendant was not eligible for resentencing because, with respect to the solicitation of murder conviction, defendant intended to cause great bodily injury. The Court of Appeal treated defendant's appeal of the order denying his petition for resentencing as a petition for writ of mandate and concluded: (1) the trial court properly determined that defendant was ineligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 because his conviction for solicitation of murder necessarily included the intent to cause great bodily injury; (2) defendant was not eligible for resentencing on other nondisqualifying current convictions because the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 excluded defendant's class of dangerous criminals from the benefit of resentencing; and (3) defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on whether he is eligible for resentencing. Having found no merit in defendant's contentions, the Court denied the petition for writ of mandate.
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.