Cal.Sup.Ct.;
S232114

The California Supreme Court affirmed a court of appeal decision. The court held that a trial court, in determining a defendant's eligibility for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, may properly consider the facts underlying a dismissed count where those facts also pertain to the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty.

Mario Estrada robbed a store clerk at gunpoint. He was charged with robbery and other crimes. The clerk testified at Estrada's preliminary hearing that Estrada was armed with a gun. Estrada later pleaded guilty to a single count of grand theft person. He was sentenced as a third strike offender to an prison term of 25 years to life. Estrada later filed a petition for resentencing under the Reform Act, arguing his theft conviction was not for a serious or violent offense. After reviewing the record of the conviction, including the preliminary hearing testimony, the trial court denied the petition, finding that because Estrada used a gun in the commission of the grand theft, he was ineligible for resentencing.