Calculating the Minimum Term of the Indeterminate
Life Sentence for A Third-Striker |
 |
In People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105, the California Supreme Court addressed
the question of how to identify the minimum
term of the indeterminate life sentence for a third strike offender when the
punishment otherwise provided for the current offense is a life sentence under a provision
that prohibits parole release for at least 25 years. The court determined that it was
appropriate to sentence the defendants under option one under section 667, subd. (e)(2)(A), which
calculates the minimum term by tripling the term otherwise provided for the current
offense. When the term for the current offense is itself indeterminate, what is tripled
is the minimum period of parole ineligibility, excluding enhancements, the Court ruled.
The Court rejected the defendants' argument that their eligibility for sentencing under
the One Strike Law, which provides that a defendant convicted of certain
sex offenses under certain circumstances shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for life and shall not be eligible for release on parole for either 15 or 25 years, rules out
punishment under the Three Strikes law. The Court decided that the Legislature intended for
both laws to apply. The Court also ruled that it was proper to use a prior conviction for
several purposes: as a strike, as a basis for referencing the One Strike Law in calculating
the minimum term under the Three Strikes Law, and to impose a five-year enhancement under
section 667, subdivision (a).
The result for one defendant, Acosta, was a sentence of 85 years to life. For the
other defendant, Cornelius, the result was a sentence of 230 years to life.
Please send questions or comments to factsla@sbcglobal.net.
Everything on this web site can be distributed to the general public,
reprinted, or reposted without permission of Families to Amend California's
3-Strikes.
Date last modified: 1/12/04.
