California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Gonzalez is that Assembly Bill No. 333's amendments to Penal Code section 186.22 apply retroactively to determine whether a prior gang-enhanced conviction qualifies as a serious felony "strike" under the Three Strikes law, under circumstances where the judgment is not yet final and the prior conviction was obtained under the less stringent pre-amendment requirements.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Kern County.

Defendant Appellant was Francisco Gonzalez — the defendant convicted of multiple firearm possession and drug charges who had a prior 2002 gang-enhanced felony conviction.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking to apply the Three Strikes law based on defendant's prior gang-enhanced conviction.

The suit sounded in criminal law involving firearm possession by a felon, drug possession while armed, and ammunition possession by a felon.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were law enforcement contacted defendant at a car wash on December 29, 2020, and located two revolvers with ammunition in his vehicle, a sawed-off shotgun in the trunk, and 1.94 grams of methamphetamine in his pocket.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court found defendant's 2002 gang-enhanced felony conviction constituted a prior strike, found true four aggravating factors based on defendant's criminal history, and imposed upper-term sentences doubled due to the strike, ruling that the prior conviction qualified as a strike and that the aggravating factors justified upper-term sentences.

The key questions on Appeal: 1. Whether Assembly Bill No. 333's amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to prior strike findings; 2. Whether a court may impose upper-term sentences based on factors relating to defendant's criminal history rather than only factors relating to the crime; 3. Whether rule 4.421(b) constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

The Appellate Court held that Assembly Bill No. 333 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments under Fletcher, requiring vacation of the prior strike finding because the record did not establish the prior conviction met the amended statute's more stringent requirements, and that courts may impose upper-term sentences based on prior convictions under section 1170(b)(3) without violating the nondelegation doctrine.

The case is inapplicable when the judgment is final (Assembly Bill No. 333 would not apply retroactively), when adequate record evidence exists to prove a prior gang conviction meets the amended statutory requirements, or when aggravating factors are submitted to a jury rather than found by the court.

The case leaves open whether rules purporting to define aggravating circumstances for jury consideration would survive constitutional scrutiny under the nondelegation doctrine, and whether section 1170(b)(2)'s reference to "circumstances in aggravation of the crime" includes factors listed in rule 4.421(a).