Mr. Lynn had four prior "strikes" (convictions for serious and/or violent felonies). He was subsequently found guilty of a robbery, PC 211 (a strike), and attempted grand theft, PC 664/487(c) (not a strike). Under the old law in place at the time of Lynn's initial sentencing, someone with two or more strikes who subsequently is convicted of any felony (strike or non-strike), could be sentenced to 25-life. As Lynn had four prior strikes, he was eligible for 25-life sentences on the robbery and on the attempted grand theft.
The sentencing judge sentenced Lynn to 35-life on the robbery (25-life on the robbery, plus 10 years for additional recidivist enhancements) and 25-life on the attempted grand theft. The two sentences were ordered to run concurrent.
Subsequently the voters changed the three-strikes law, conforming it to its name. Now the triggering conviction must also be a strike. Prisoners who had been sentenced to life sentences under the old law, who would not now be eligible for life sentences, can now ask the court to reduce their sentences to conform to the new law, PC 1170.126.
Lynn asked the court to reduce his grand theft sentence of 25-life since his attempted grand theft conviction was not a strike, meaning under the current law Lynn couldn't get a life sentence. The trial court denied his 1170.126 petition because it was part of a case that also contained a strike, the robbery. Lynn appealed.
In the interim, the California Supreme Court held that each count must be considered individually, People v. Johnson. Consistent with Johnson, this Second District panel reverses and remands to the trial court for further proceedings on Lynn's 1170.126 petition as to the attempted grand theft count. The 35-life sentence on the robbery is unaffected.
No comments:
Post a Comment