California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Scott is that defendants serving Three Strikes sentences who successfully petition for Proposition 47 relief must also satisfy Proposition 36's public safety requirements before receiving a full resentencing on their indeterminate sentences, under circumstances where the defendant's aggregate sentence implicates both Proposition 36 and Proposition 47.

Appeal from sentencing order in Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

Defendant Appellant was Jaye Ramon Scott, Jr. — the Three Strikes defendant who petitioned for Proposition 47 relief on his grand theft conviction while serving 35 years to life.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution opposing full resentencing and arguing for public safety restrictions.

The suit sounded in criminal sentencing relief under Propositions 36 and 47. No cross-claims.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Scott was convicted in 1995 of involuntary manslaughter and grand theft with two prior strike convictions, sentenced to 35 years to life. In 2013, his Proposition 36 petition was denied based on public safety concerns. In 2022, he filed a Proposition 47 petition arguing his grand theft conviction should be redesignated as a misdemeanor because the stolen items were valued under $950.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted Scott's Proposition 47 petition and redesignated count 2 as a misdemeanor, but refused to conduct full resentencing on count 1 (involuntary manslaughter), ruling that it only had jurisdiction to resentence on count 2 since the sentences ran concurrently.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to conduct full resentencing following successful Proposition 47 petition; 2. Whether five-year serious felony enhancements could be reimposed; 3. Whether the trial court must conduct a new Proposition 36 public safety determination on remand.

The Appellate Court held that trial courts must conduct full resentencing under Proposition 47's "full resentencing rule" regardless of concurrent sentences, cannot reimpose five-year enhancements when current conviction is not a serious felony, and must apply Proposition 36's public safety standard (not Proposition 47's narrower "super strike" standard) when resentencing Three Strikes defendants who successfully obtain Proposition 47 relief.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant is not serving a Three Strikes sentence, when the Proposition 47 petition involves only misdemeanor convictions, or when the defendant's sentence does not implicate both Proposition 36 and Proposition 47.

The case leaves open how trial courts should weigh prior public safety determinations against current evidence of dangerousness, and whether other ameliorative sentencing laws apply during such resentencings.