Divided state Supreme Court allows review of some life terms under 2021 law

A divided state Supreme Court on Thursday revived a path for some inmates convicted under the Three Strikes law to win shorter terms, ruling that judges may use a resentencing law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 to revisit life sentences if they apply Proposition 36's public safety check.

The 5-2 ruling by Justice Kelli M. Evans reversed a 2nd District Court of Appeal decision that reinstated Edgardo Guevara's 25-year-to-life sentence for treating his felony spousal abuse conviction as a third strike.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Von T. Nguyen Deroian, citing the 2021 law, resentenced Guevara to an eight-year prison term after a motion from his attorney, Public Defender Tracy M. Macuga, because the third strike is nonserious and nonviolent under the statute.

Guevara first petitioned for resentencing in 2013, but a Santa Barbara judge denied it on the grounds that his release would pose an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." A 2nd District panel affirmed that decision in 2016.

But he returned after passage of the 2021 law, and Deroian ruled that Guevara should have a prison term enhancement removed and was entitled to resentencing under the new law.

The key question on appeal was whether the 2021 law, Penal Code Section 1172.75, could exist in a way that allowed Guevara to be resentenced to a lighter prison term.

Justice Arthur A. Gilbert, writing for a divided 2nd District panel, said no in a December 2023 ruling. He wrote that while Proposition 36 allows resentencing, Guevara was found to be a danger to the public in 2013 and that was his only try.

Evans, however, wrote that Proposition 36 was not the only way for inmates to be resentenced because subdivision (k) allows defendants to seek second-strike terms if they do not pose a risk to public safety.

She characterized the move as one of "constitutional avoidance," which maintained the integrity of both Proposition 36 and the 2021 law.

The court remanded the case to the 2nd District, with instructions that it be sent back to Santa Barbara County Superior Court to determine if Guevara - who remains in state prison -- would pose a risk of danger if released. People v. Superior Court (Guevara), 2025 DJDAR 9609 (Cal. S. Ct., filed Jan. 9, 2024).

Justice Carol A. Corrigan, joined by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, dissented.

"The majority misapplies the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to rewrite section 1172.75 in a manner that facilitates the result it seeks," Corrigan wrote. "In doing so, the majority also fails in its duty to 'jealously guard this right of the people' reflected in the initiative and referendum process."

The dissents by Corrigan and Guerrero are the latest example of the justices dissenting from a state high court opinion that favors criminal defendants.

Susan L. Champion, deputy director of Stanford Law School's Three Strikes Project who represented Guevara before the state Supreme Court, said Thursday's ruling is "a great decision."

But she and Santa Barbara County Senior Deputy District Attorney Marguerite Clipper Charles both downplayed the wider impact of the decision. "This decision directly implicates a narrow group of cases in which the defendant is eligible for resentencing pursuant to 1172.75 and is serving an indeterminate term for a nonserious, nonviolent 3rd strike," Charles wrote in an email.