Error and/or relief
It was error to impose a sentence under the One Strike law, because the date of the offense was prior to the amendment in 2006 that added the section violated by the defendant to the list of crimes that may be prosecuted under the One Strike law.
First Holding:
In 1994, the Legislature enacted the “One Strike” law requiring indeterminate life sentences for certain sex offenses committed under particular circumstances. Prior to 2006, section 288.5 did not qualify as a One Strike offense. Consequently in 2006, the Legislature amended section 667.61 to encompass continuous sexual abuse under section 288.5(a), as a One Strike offense.
Authority:
PEN 667.61
People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1173–1174
Second Holding:
At sentencing, the trial court sentenced the defendant under the One Strike law for his count 7 conviction. However, the 2006 amendment to the One Strike law was inapplicable the defendant’s crime of continuous sexual abuse conviction because the crime took place from 1997 to 2001. Consequently, the trial court improperly applied the One Strike law retroactively. As a result, we vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for a full resentencing hearing at which defendant has a right to be present with counsel.
Authority:
Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 42–43
(Gary note: This case demonstrates the importance of reviewing the statutes in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Counsel should not just assume that the version of the statute in existence today applied at the time the crime was committed. While I firmly believe counsel should always check, it just cries out with red flags when the crime in question occurred decades earlier. Where was counsel? Yes, I’m Monday Morning Quarterbacking here, but I just cannot fathom representing someone facing serious sex charges decades old and not checking to see if the very complex provisions of the One Strike law even apply.
(I am not embarrassed to soapbox here. Attorneys do not have easy jobs, and criminal defense attorneys need to understand that they are critical in how much life and liberty remain for their criminal clients. We cannot take it for granted that the probation department and the prosecution and the judge got it right. We have to examine every detail and ethically exploit every possibility to ensure that our clients, if convicted, do not serve one minute in custody longer than legally permitted by law and under their circumstances.
(Our clients are real people, and they have to count on us to do our best, and they deserve our best. No one who thinks otherwise should even consider being a criminal defense attorney. Raise your hand if you think a day in jail or a day in prison is like a day in the park with the kids or pets. Raise your hand if you have no problem paying the level of fines and fees imposed, particularly when assessments are piled on top of the stated fine. Raise your hand if you don’t think these penalties mean anything to your clients, or at least that they don’t care whether you are able to minimize the custody or the financial burdens.)