California v. Berry
Annotate this CaseDefendant Roland Berry appealed the dismissal of his petition for recall of his indeterminate life sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126, enacted as part of the Three Strikes Reform Act (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 6, 2012). Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate life term in 2000, following his guilty plea to counts alleging: (1) possession of a fraudulent check ; and (2) possession of a forged driver's license. The trial court's dismissal of defendant's petition was based on a determination he was ineligible for resentencing relief because he was armed with a firearm during his commission of the offenses to which he pled guilty. Defendant argued on appeal this was error for several reasons, all stemming from the fact that the counts alleging he was in possession of a firearm had been dismissed in conjunction with his plea agreement. Among other things, defendant argued that the initial determination of an inmate's eligibility for recall of his sentence under subdivision (e) of section 1170.126 must be based upon the convictions the indeterminate sentence is being served for, the offenses for which the "inmate's current sentence was . . . imposed," and the inmate's "prior convictions." None of those things could be established by reference to the evidence underlying dismissed counts. On the merits, the Court of Appeal agreed with defendant: the resentencing provisions of section 1170.126 were "intended to apply exclusively to persons . . . whose sentence under this act would not have been an indeterminate life sentence." Thus, "the basic premise of section 1170.126 was that an inmate who is serving an indeterminate life sentence under prior versions of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, 1170.12), but whose convictions and related factual findings would not have warranted such a sentence under the revised provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act passed by the voters, [was] eligible to seek a recall of that earlier sentence." Under the two-part analysis required by section 1170.126, an eligible inmate would not be granted resentencing relief if the court determined, in its discretion, that "resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." Because the trial court in this case relied on the evidence underlying the dismissed counts in assessing defendant's eligibility for resentencing, the Court of Appeal concluded it erred in dismissing his petition. The case was remanded for the court to determine whether defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public safety.
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.