Reported / Citable
Background
In 1996, Jaye Ramon Scott, Jr. was sentenced to 35 years to life under California’s Three Strikes law after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter and grand theft, with two prior robbery strikes. The sentence included two consecutive five-year enhancements under Penal Code § 667(a)(1) for the prior serious felony convictions.
In 2013, Scott sought resentencing under Proposition 36 — the 2012 voter initiative that allows non-violent third-strike offenders to petition for a reduced sentence. The trial court denied that petition, finding Scott posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. In 2022, Scott tried a different route: he filed a petition under Proposition 47, the 2014 voter initiative that reclassified certain low-level felonies as misdemeanors. He argued his grand theft conviction involved property worth less than $950 and should be redesignated as misdemeanor petty theft. The trial court agreed, but then refused to resentence Scott on his Three Strikes count — the 35-year-to-life term for involuntary manslaughter — reasoning that because the two sentences ran concurrently, resentencing on the grand theft (Count 2) was sufficient.
Scott appealed, and the Attorney General conceded the trial court had erred. The parties agreed Scott was entitled to a full resentencing, but disagreed on whether the court on remand must conduct a new public safety inquiry under Proposition 36 before it could reduce the Three Strikes sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District reversed and remanded with three significant holdings.
First, the full resentencing rule applies. California’s “full resentencing rule” — which the Supreme Court confirmed applies in Proposition 47 proceedings — requires a trial court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when it grants a Proposition 47 petition, not just the count being redesignated. The fact that the Two Strikes sentence on Count 1 ran concurrently with Count 2 does not shield it from reconsideration; courts at a full resentencing may revisit concurrent vs. consecutive decisions, Romero motions, and other sentencing choices.
Second, the § 667(a)(1) five-year enhancements must be vacated. Under current law, the enhancement requires both the prior conviction and the current conviction to be “serious felonies.” Involuntary manslaughter — Count 1 — is not a serious felony under California law. Neither is petty theft. So neither of the enhancements can lawfully be reimposed at resentencing.
Third, the trial court on remand must conduct a new public safety inquiry under the Proposition 36 standard before it can reduce Scott’s Three Strikes sentence. The court analogized to the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025), which held that when a § 1172.75 resentencing intersects with a Proposition 36 Three Strikes sentence, the Proposition 36 public safety override must be incorporated. Although Guevara‘s constitutional avoidance rationale doesn’t directly apply here (both Prop 36 and Prop 47 are initiative statutes), the same principle of harmonizing the two statutes requires preserving Proposition 36’s discretionary public safety override. The new inquiry must assess current dangerousness — Scott’s 2013 dangerousness finding is relevant but not controlling given the passage of more than a decade.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner serving a Three Strikes sentence who wins a Proposition 47 petition is entitled to a full resentencing on all counts, not just the redesignated conviction — even if sentences ran concurrently.
- At full resentencing, courts must reassess all prior sentencing decisions, including Five-year § 667(a)(1) serious felony enhancements, which cannot be reimposed if neither the current conviction nor prior convictions qualify as serious felonies under current law.
- When a Proposition 47 resentencing would result in a Three Strikes sentence reduction, the trial court must conduct a new public safety evaluation under Proposition 36’s standard — not just the narrower “super strike” standard from Proposition 47.
- The new public safety inquiry must assess current dangerousness; a prior denial under Proposition 36 is relevant but a court should not automatically defer to it after significant time has passed.
- Defendants with stacked Three Strikes sentences and prior Prop 36 denials still have a viable path to resentencing through a Prop 47 petition on a qualifying conviction, but must ultimately satisfy the Prop 36 public safety test to obtain a reduced indeterminate sentence.
Why It Matters
California’s Three Strikes sentencing scheme continues to generate complex intersections with subsequent reform initiatives. This decision clarifies the procedural roadmap for a category of prisoners who were ineligible for (or denied) Proposition 36 relief in 2013 but who may now qualify for Proposition 47 redesignation of a low-level conviction. The full resentencing rule gives these prisoners a genuine second look at all components of their sentence — including invalidated enhancements and potential strike-dismissal motions — making this a meaningful avenue for long-serving inmates whose underlying conduct may qualify under both reform measures.
The requirement that courts apply the Proposition 36 public safety standard is a significant limit on that potential. Proposition 36’s standard — whether resentencing poses an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” — is broader and less defendant-favorable than Proposition 47’s narrow “super strike” standard. Practitioners handling these cases must be prepared to litigate current dangerousness at a hearing, presenting rehabilitation evidence and current risk assessments, rather than relying on the Proposition 47 grant as a shortcut to sentence reduction.