P v. Hall (1st. Dist., Div.5) No Abuse of Discretion in Denial of PC 1170.18 Petition Upon Finding Defendant Posed An Unreasonable Risk to Public Safety

Mr. Hall put a knife to the belly of a woman and demanded her purse.  She refused to give up her purse so Hall wrestled it away from her and completed a short spring before he was caught.  

For this Hall was charged with PC 211, robbery.  He was also alleged to have suffered two prior strike offenses and to have served five prior prison terms.  Had he been convicted as charged he could have been sentenced to 30 years to life.

Instead, Hall took a plea deal for five years; the robbery was reduced to grand theft from a person, PC487(c) (three years), with admissions to two prior prison terms (two years).  While Hall was in prison, the California electorate passed Proposition 47 which reduced grand theft under 950 dollars to a misdemeanor.  Hall petitioned for his 487(c) conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor under PC 1170.18.  If successful, Hall's maximum sentence would be six months (recall his initial exposure was 30-life).  

The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that, if the petition was granted, there was an unreasonable risk that Hall would commit a homicide or other violent felony punishable by life in prison.  Hall appealed.  

The First District affirms the denial, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its finding.

I'm not sure why this opinion is published.  It doesn't appear to involve any legal novelty.  The statutory language is vague enough to encompass Mr. Hall, given his history and the present offense.  Maybe it was published to establish some judicial benchmark (pun intended) for trial courts by stating what category of factual scenarios will justify a finding of "unreasonable danger".

I do see one possible future issue.  One of the categories of offenses at issue in 1170.18 petitions is "serious/ or violent offenses punishable by life".  What if a defendant has two prior strikes?  In such a case, any serious/ or violent offense is punishable by life due to this defendant's priors.  This is not necessarily the case for someone without such priors.  For instance, second degree robbery, PC211, if committed by someone with two prior strikes, is punishable by life.  But when committed by someone without any prior felony convictions, is punishable, at most, by five years.  Is it okay to deny the former defendant's PC 1170.18 petition on the ground of an unreasonable risk he will commit a future PC 211?