Divided California Supreme Court narrows Three Strikes law

In a rare 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday that under a 2021 statute, prior convictions must qualify as 'serious felonies' under current law to enhance prison sentences under the Three Strikes Law. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero filed a pointed dissent.

Justice Goodwin H. Liu, writing for the majority, vacated the sentences of two gang members convicted of attempted murder, holding that prosecutors must prove the defendants' prior convictions would qualify as serious felonies under AB 333.

Liu acknowledged that the laws "are not paragons of clarity," but vacated the prior serious felony findings against defendants Larry Lee Fletcher and Eric Anthony Taylor Jr. anyway, remanding the case for retrial under the updated gang crime statute, Penal Code Section 186.22.

"We narrowly conclude that with regard to prior convictions like Fletcher's and Taylor's that are premised on violations of section 186.22, current law applies in determining whether they qualify as prior serious felony convictions," the justice wrote.

Liu - who was joined by Justices Leondra R. Kruger, Joshua P. Groban and Kelli M. Evans - vacated the trial court's findings that Fletcher's and Taylor's 2015 convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang constituted serious felonies.

Including those prior strikes, a Riverside County judge sentenced Fletcher to 56 years to life in prison. Taylor, who had an additional 2011 conviction for attempted burglary, was sentenced to 100 years to life.

But Liu remanded the case to the trial court for a retrial of those 2015 allegations under the standards of the 2021 law.

Liu also ruled that AB 333 does not unconstitutionally amend Proposition 21 or Proposition 36. People v. Fletcher et al., 2025 DJDAR 8064 (Cal. S. Ct., filed Aug. 4, 2023).

Guerrero - joined by Justices Carol A. Corrigan and Martin J. Jenkins - said the majority misread the intent of the Three Strikes Law and warned the ruling would wipe out longer sentences for many offenders.

"This novel standard is virtually impossible to meet, and it will nullify decades of prior convictions that would otherwise support enhanced sentences for repeat felony offenders," she wrote. "It is also unsupported by the plain language of the relevant statutes and the intent of the voters and the Legislature that enacted them."

"In this case, the majority's holding means that Fletcher and Taylor, who indisputably were convicted of prior serious felony offenses, will be treated as if they had no such convictions," Guerrero continued. "The majority's holding ignores the obvious contradiction between this result and the clear intent of the Legislature and the electorate."

"The majority claims the authority to change the Three Strikes law under the guise of interpreting it, and in so doing it reaches a result the Legislature did not enact and the voters did not intend," she added.

The state Supreme Court has tended to issue unanimous opinions with rare dissents, often by Liu and Evans in criminal cases. But Guerrero has written several dissents during the past few months, and her language has grown more pointed.

Liu responded to the dissent in his majority opinion, arguing that the statute's language supports his conclusion. "Our dissenting colleagues do not disagree that section 1192.7(c)(28) uses present-tense phrasing, but they resist the consequences that flow from the voters' choice to use such language," he wrote.

The state attorney general's office said it was reviewing the decision.

Deputy Attorney General Britton B. Lacy could not be reached for comment on Monday, but during oral arguments in June, she said, "AB 333's amendments to the criminal state gang statute do not affect appellants' prior serious felony determinations."

Stephen M. Lathrop, a Rolling Hills Estates attorney who represents Taylor, and Michael C. Sampson of Aptos, who represents Fletcher, could not be reached for comment.