In re Guice
Annotate this Case
Guice was convicted, in three separate cases. of transportation of a controlled substance, two counts of possession of cocaine base for sale, evading an officer, robbery, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and bringing a controlled substance into jail. The allegation that Guice had a prior strike conviction was found true, as were various sentence enhancement allegations. In 2019, Guice sought habeas corpus relief, contending that he is eligible for parole consideration under Proposition 57 because his primary offense of transportation of a controlled substance is nonviolent.
The court of appeal denied relief. Regulations adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, excluding mixed-offense inmates who are currently serving a term for a violent felony offense from nonviolent parole consideration, are “a reasonable interpretation” of section 32(a), added to the California Constitution by Proposition 57. Guice has completed serving the full term for his primary, nonviolent offense and is currently serving a term for a violent felony offense. Although section 32 clearly mandates nonviolent parole consideration for individuals convicted solely of nonviolent offenses, the fact that the provision does not define the phrase, “convicted of a nonviolent felony offense,” renders it “reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning” when applied to mixed-offense.
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.