Legal Opinion

People v. Florez

California Court of Appeal, 6th District

Decided March 14, 2016No. H040327PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtPremo, J.

*1180Defendant John Paul Florez is currently serving a "Three Strikes" sentence. Following the passage of Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126.1 Although he was eligible to be resentenced based on his current and past offenses, the trial court exercised its discretion to find that resentencing him "would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" (§ 1170.126, subd. (f)) and denied his petition. Defendant appealed. For the *1181reasons set forth below we find no merit in any of defendant's arguments on appeal and…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Dillon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  4. People v. CarmonyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. In Re RosenkrantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. MontgomeryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API