P. v. Mack CA4/3
The trial court denied Anthony Eugene Mack’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126 (Proposition 36) finding “resentencing . . . would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).) Mack contends the court erred in failing to apply the definition of “‘unreasonable risk to public safety’” contained in section 1170.18, subd. (c) (Proposition 47), which “means an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony” within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(C)(iv). After the parties’ briefs were submitted, our Supreme Court decided People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347 (Valencia), which held Proposition 47’s definition of unreasonable risk of danger to public safety does not apply to resentencing under Proposition 36. Mack also contends he was entitled to have a jury determine whether he posed an unreasonable risk to public safety under Proposition 36. As Mack notes, the Cour
Comments on P. v. Mack CA4/3