California v. Valliant
Annotate this CaseAlexander Valliant was charged with second degree robbery; criminal threats; carrying a dirk or dagger; carrying a loaded firearm in public; and driving on a suspended license, all arising out of a single incident in September 2014. He ultimately pled guilty to second degree robbery and admitted he personally used a firearm during the commission of that robbery. In exchange, the District Attorney agreed to dismiss the four remaining charges. He was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to a prison term of 12 years. Valliant petitioned to recall his sentence and be resentenced pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.91 (b), which authorized such relief for military veterans who suffered from military-related trauma and substance abuse, and who did not have those factors considered as mitigating factors when they were originally sentenced. The court denied his petition on the basis that section 1170.91 (b)(1)(B) authorized resentencing relief only for persons who were sentenced before January 1, 2015. On its face, this provision did not apply to Valliant who was sentenced in March 2015. Valliant, along with amicus curiae from the Orange County Public Defender’s Office (amicus), argued the trial court erred in its interpretation of subdivision (b)(1)(B), contending that when properly understood, the subdivision extended resentencing relief to all veterans whose military-related trauma was not considered at their initial sentencing, without regard to when that sentencing took place. Valliant suggested this broad construction was the only reasonable interpretation of subdivision (b)(1)(B), while amicus claims the language was “poorly drafted” and ambiguous, and urged the Court of Appeal to resolve the purported ambiguity by examining the statute’s purpose and legislative history. The Court declined such requests and affirmed the trial court: "There is no ambiguity. In the face of such an unequivocal statutory limitation, we have no authority to rewrite the statute even if we sympathize with the contention."
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.