Error and/or relief
The trial court erroneously used the defendant’s 2012 prior conviction to sentence him under the Three Strikes law without first determining whether that gang-enhanced felony could have been obtained after amendments enacted by AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 699).
First Holding:
Where a defendant has previously suffered a conviction under the prior version of Penal Code section 186.22, the changes made in AB 333 apply to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.
Authority:
People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576
Second Holding:
By treating the defendant’s 2012 conviction as a prior strike conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence that is unauthorized by law under Fletcher. The defendant’s argument is therefore not forfeited.
Authority:
People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 749, fn. 7 [forfeiture principles do not apply to legal error resulting in an unauthorized sentence]
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 751 [The unauthorized sentence rule is an exception to the forfeiture doctrine. It permits a challenge to an unauthorized sentence on appeal even if the defendant failed to object below.]