California v. Buford
Annotate this CaseDefendant Victor Buford was serving a term of 25 years to life in prison for his conviction of a felony that was not violent (as defined by Pen. Code, sec. 667.5 (c)) or serious (as defined by Pen. Code, sec. 1192.7 (c)). Defendant filed a petition pursuant to the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (hereafter Proposition 36 or the Act) to have his sentence recalled and to be resentenced. The trial court concluded resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and denied the petition. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the State had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts on which a finding that resentencing a petitioner would have posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety reasonably can be based. Those facts would be reviewed for substantial evidence. The Court held further that the preponderance of the evidence standard did not apply to the trial court’s determination regarding dangerousness, nor did section 1170.126, subdivision (f), create a presumption in favor of resentencing. The ultimate decision of whether resentencing an inmate would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety was within the sound discretion of the trial court. In the unpublished portion of the Court's opinion, it found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.
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.