California v. Saelee
Annotate this CaseIn October 2013, defendant Okouava Saelee was charged with manufacturing hash oil, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possessing marijuana for sale. The complaint alleged he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction based on a 1994 conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm. In September 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to possessing marijuana for sale and admitted the prior serious felony conviction allegation as well as a prior prison term allegation under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), which was added to the information by stipulation. The court sentenced defendant to a negotiated aggregate term of seven years. In December 2016, defendant petitioned to redesignate his offense as a misdemeanor. In February 2017, the prosecution filed written opposition to the petition, arguing that resentencing was inappropriate because defendant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. The prosecution did not challenge defendant’s assertion that he was statutorily eligible for resentencing. Although the prosecution’s written opposition contained numerous factual assertions, it was not supported by any evidence. Through its opinion, the Court of Appeal made clear that the prosecution was required to admit actual evidence to establish an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety in the second step of Health and Safety Code section 11361.8 (b), enacted as part of Proposition 64. Furthermore, the Court held that the standard of proof was proof by a preponderance of the evidence. “Mere assertions of fact and argument by the prosecution, unsupported by evidence, is insufficient to establish an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, i.e., an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a ‘super-strike’ violent felony offense. Thus, while we disagree with defendant’s contention that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the risk of dangerousness finding under section 11361.8(b), we nevertheless conclude the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting defendant’s petition to recall and resentence his conviction as a misdemeanor because in determining that defendant presented an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, the trial court relied only on bald factual assertions and argument by the prosecution unsupported by actual evidence.” The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
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.