California Court of Appeals, Third District, Shasta
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, No. MCRDCRF080000011 James Ruggiero, Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Charles M. Bonneau, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Tia M. Coronado, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Armando Joseph Garcia appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). The court based the denial on its finding that defendant poses “an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” if released. The bases for its finding were defendant’s “nonstop criminal history” that included violent felonies (two robberies), two escapes from confinement, an 18-year prison commitment shortly after which he exhibited a weapon, and the relatively recent timing of his current offense (receiving stolen property) in 2007.
Defendant contends on appeal the Act is unconstitutionally vague because the term “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is not adequately defined. We disagree.
As we explain, the term “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is clear because it can be objectively ascertained by reference to the
examples of evidence the trial court may consider in making this determination. These examples are: “(1) The petitioner’s criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, and the remoteness of the crimes; [¶] (2) The petitioner’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and [¶] (3) Any other evidence the court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant in ...