California v. Quinones
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted defendant Humberto Quinones of two counts of possession for sale of heroin, one count of transportation of a controlled substance, and possession by a convicted felon of a firearm, and found he was personally armed with a firearm during the drug offenses, and had two prior strike convictions for two 1981 robberies. In early 2013, defendant filed this petition, alleging his current felonies were not serious or violent. Regarding the arming allegation, he argued that the sentencing judge "did not just strike the punishment; rather, it struck the enhancement allegations completely." Defendant argued the arming allegation was not part of his record of conviction and he was eligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act. The State opposed the motion, arguing the arming allegation had been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury, and had been stricken for sentencing purposes only, and therefore defendant was disqualified from relief. The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant ineligible under the Act because he possessed a firearm during the current offenses, notwithstanding that the sentencing judge struck the arming enhancement at defendant’s 1996 sentencing. Defendant then appealed the trial court's decision. The Court of Appeal concluded after review that the arming enhancement found by the jury but dismissed for sentencing purposes indeed disqualified defendant for resentencing purposes.
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.