California v. Crockett
Annotate this CaseDefendant Leon Wilson Crockett filed a petition to recall his indeterminate life sentence. The statute, enacted as part of a November 2012 initiative measure, provided retrospective relief under narrow criteria from indeterminate life sentences imposed for recidivism. Defendant alleged that he was eligible for resentencing because his February 2009 commitment convictions (corporal injury to a cohabitant, false imprisonment by means of force or violence (as a lesser offense of kidnapping), and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury) were not “serious” or violent felonies, and neither his commitment convictions nor his other prior felony convictions came within any other disqualifying criteria. He asserted that the trial court as a result should resentence him to a determinate sentence of double the term otherwise applicable to his convictions. The original sentencing judge presided over the matter. The court appointed counsel and invited opposition from the prosecutor. The prosecutor “determined that the defendant is eligible for recall of sentence . . . and will therefore not object to the Court considering . . . re-sentencing.” However, the prosecutor contended defendant presented an unreasonable risk of danger to the safety of the public and asked that he not be resentenced. The trial court exercised its discretion to deny the petition on the ground that defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the State now sought to raise the threshold question of whether in fact defendant was eligible for resentencing. Procedurally, defendant argued he was entitled to have a jury determine the issue of unreasonable danger beyond a reasonable doubt, or have the court determine the issue either by that standard or by clear and convincing evidence. He also argued that whatever the burden of proof, the prosecution did not satisfy it. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded defendant was eligible for resentencing, he was not entitled to a jury to determine the issue of unreasonable danger, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reaching its judgment.
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.