Three law professors explained legal details of the Three Strikes initiative on the November ballot for about 200 San Quentin prisoners, volunteers and staff members.
An estimated 3,000 to 4,000 California prisoners could be affected if voters approve the measure, Proposition 36, reported Stanford University law professors Michael Romano and David W. Mills, who led the successful initiative petition campaign that requires the election, and Anne Deveraux.
Before the July 27 forum, the lawyers met with the executive body of the San Quentin three strikes self-help group, Hope for Strikers. It includes prisoners who has been sentenced under the Three Strikes Law for at least the last 16 years. The inmates discussed their problems while in society which led them to crime, how they have rehabilitated themselves while incarcerated, and articulated their plans and aspirations for the future.
Patten College instructors and others asked questions and received information pertinent to Proposition 36.
Here are answers to questions posed to the professors:
According to Brown v. Poole, if the government agrees to give a defendant a specific sentence on a prior plea agreement, is the government obligated to honor the agreement?
Yes. If it’s on the record, the government must honor the agreement.
Why won’t this initiative cover all three strikers?
Public opinion dictates the scope of the initiative in tandem with the law itself.
Will this affect those falling under the Cunningham law?
Yes, and hopefully it will give people relief.
What can we do to help the initiative pass?
Let your people on the street, your family, your loved ones, know about the initiative and where to go on the Internet to receive information: www.Prop 36.org.
How can those released by the initiative help the others still inside?
By staying clean and staying out of trouble. The last thing we need is people coming home, then getting into trouble. Those opposed will use you as an example.
There is a provision in the initiative that states the petitioner has up to two years to submit a petition for resentencing to the court. Does this also mean that the court has up to two years to answer the petition?
No. Generally the court will have 30 to 45 days to answer the petition. The D.A. in most cases will ask for an extension.
In the provision of the initiative, the judge can deny the petitioner resentencing in spite of him meeting the criteria. Does this mean that the judge can arbitrarily deny the petition without substantial proof that petitioner is an unreasonable risk to society?
No. The petitioner is deemed by the initiative not to pose a risk to society, merely due to his/her meeting the criteria. Hence, the D.A. in this case has the burden to prove that the petitioner is a threat to society, not based on past conduct rather current behavior. A similar measure was passed regarding the resentencing of a defendant sentenced for possession of crack cocaine and 88 percent of the criminal defendant convicted for crack as oppose to powder cocaine were resentenced. We expect a similar turnout in this case.
