California v. Superior Court (Rangel)
Annotate this CaseIn 1996, real party in interest Leonard Rangel, was convicted of felon in possession and two misdemeanors. As a “third striker,” he received an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life. In 2012 the electorate, by initiative measure (Proposition 36), amended Penal Code section 667 so that many of those defendants who have two prior strikes but whose current conviction is not for a “serious and/or violent felony” are subject only to a doubled base term sentence rather than the minimum 25-to-life terms reserved for more serious current violators. At the same time, the electorate added section 1170.126 as a mechanism by which inmates sentenced as “third strikers” under the old law could seek to be resentenced under the new provisions, if they would have been subject only to the lesser term had they been sentenced under the new law and met specified other requirements. In November 2012, Rangel filed such a request, which the court granted in 2014. Rangel was resentenced to the upper term of three years for the weapons offense, doubled to six years, plus three additional prior prison term enhancements for a total of nine years. The State challenged the trial court’s failure to place Rangel under community supervision was based on the theory that such supervision was by statute mandatory, (which was not disputed) to the extent that parole was also mandatory. The State also pointed out that Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (a) did not include the term of community supervision as one which may be reduced by excess credits, although it does expressly include the period of parole. Rangel casted the problem in terms of a violation of the equal protection clause. He argued that he was similarly situated with those released from prison who are subject to parole, and that there was no rational basis for applying excess credits to a parole term but not a community supervision term. Finding no error with the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed and denied the State's challenge to Rangel's sentence.
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.