‘3-Strikes’ Law

In “Three Strikes and a Balk” (Commentary, April 25), Gerald Uelmen interpreted a portion of California’s new “three strikes and you’re out” law incorrectly. Uelmen states that AB 971, which I authored, applies prospectively due to a provision of the bill which he quoted only in part.

“The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior felony conviction for purposes of (“three strikes”) shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction. . . .” Although not cited by Uelmen, the sentence then continues, “and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor.”

Uelmen interprets this to mean that a convicted felon will “learn at his or her sentencing whether that conviction counts as strike one (or two).” Uelmen is wrong. There is no language which explicitly or implicitly requires a judge to determine that a strike has been earned upon conviction, or to inform a felon that a strike has been earned upon conviction.

The passage Uelmen cites simply means that, regardless of the imposition of a suspended sentence, probation, or a diversion program upon the first conviction of a serious or violent felony, the fact of conviction determines that a strike has been earned. Such retroactive application is consistent with other portions of the bill.

AB 971 states, in part, that a prior conviction of a felony (for the purposes of “three strikes”) shall be defined as a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of (a serious or violent felony in California). Since it would be “absurd and stupid” to believe that California could place a requirement on other states that their judges inform convicted felons of an earned “strike” in another state, application of the law is clearly retroactive.

Further, portions of the bill which deal with juvenile adjudications list four conditions to qualify a conviction as a prior felony, none of which require a judge to determine or inform. Clearly, application of the law is retroactive.

It is interesting to note how those who seek more lenient treatment of repeat felony offenders continue to focus on small portions of the “three strikes and you’re out” law, in this case a portion of a sentence, in order to find an interpretation which matches their ideological predisposition.

BILL JONES

Assembly, R-Fresno