California Supreme Court Limits Three Strikes Law: What This Means for Gang-Related Convictions
In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled that prior convictions must qualify as serious felonies under current law to be used for sentence enhancements under California’s Three Strikes Law. This ruling has major implications for defendants with gang-related prior convictions, particularly in light of Assembly Bill 333’s narrowed definition of gang offenses.
Our experienced criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can guide you through the legal process. Call Wallin & Klarich today toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for your free consultation with one of our appeals attorneys near you.
People v. Fletcher (2025)
This case involved two defendants who were gang members, jointly tried and convicted in 2020 of premeditated attempted murder, active participation in a criminal street gang, and firearm offenses. Following their convictions, the trial court conducted a bench trial to determine whether the defendants had prior “strike” convictions that would enhance their sentences under California’s Three Strikes Law.
The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant had been previously convicted in 2015 of firearm possession committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Under the law as it existed at that time, the gang enhancement attached to these convictions made them qualifying offenses under the Three Strikes Law, and the defendants were sentenced.
The Impact of Assembly Bill 333
This legislation significantly narrowed the definitions of gang enhancements and offenses under California Penal Code Section 186.22. AB 333 made it more difficult for prosecutors to prove gang-related charges by imposing stricter requirements.
Because the defendants’ convictions for gang participation-related offenses and enhancements were still on appeal and not yet final, the case was remanded for retrial. However, a crucial legal question emerged: Could AB 333’s narrowed definitions be applied retroactively to determine whether the defendants’ prior convictions still qualified as serious or violent felonies for Three Strikes purposes?
The Court of Appeal held that applying AB 333’s narrowed definitions to the gang-related Penal Code Section 186.22 priors would constitute an improper legislative amendment. The California Supreme Court then granted review to settle this important question.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The California Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded the case with specific instructions. The Court focused on the language of Penal Code Section 1192.7(c)(28), which is part of the Three Strikes Law. This section states that “any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22” is subject to a five-year prior serious felony enhancement.
The key word in this statute is “would.” By using the present conditional tense—”would also”—rather than past tense language, the legislature signaled its intent that prior convictions should be evaluated against current legal standards. The Supreme Court determined that this wording allows for the current application of AB 333’s changes when determining whether prior convictions qualify as prior serious felonies under Section 1192.7(c)(28).
In other words, the statute’s use of “would also constitute” meant that the electorate intended for past gang-related convictions to meet current law requirements when being used to enhance sentences. This interpretation prevents defendants from being subjected to enhanced sentences based on conduct that would no longer qualify as a serious felony under existing law.
Because the record did not show that the defendants’ prior conviction findings met AB 333’s more stringent requirements, the Supreme Court remanded the case so that Section 186.22’s changes as amended by AB 333 could be properly applied on retrial.
Broader Implications
This decision has significant ramifications beyond just this case. It means that defendants with older gang-related convictions may no longer face Three Strikes enhancements if their prior convictions don’t meet AB 333’s stricter standards. This could affect numerous cases throughout California where prior gang convictions are being used to enhance sentences.
How Our Criminal Defense Law Firm Can Help
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges involving gang allegations or Three Strikes enhancements, this recent Supreme Court decision may significantly impact your case. Our experienced criminal defense attorneys stay current on all developments in California criminal law to provide you with the strongest possible defense.
Three Strikes cases carry severe consequences—potentially 25 years to life in prison. Having knowledgeable legal representation can make the difference between decades behind bars and a fair sentence that reflects current legal standards.
Contact Wallin & Klarich Today
If you are facing criminal charges, you need to contact an aggressive defense attorney to fight for your freedom. With 40+ years of experience, our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have helped many clients ensure they receive a fair trial in their criminal defense cases. We know the most effective strategies to argue on your behalf, and we will do everything in our power to help you achieve the best possible result in your case.
At Wallin & Klarich, we have offices all over Southern California: Irvine, Pasadena, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Torrance, Victorville, and Anaheim. Additionally, our law firm can handle many types of cases statewide.
Discover how our team can assist you. Contact us today, toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for a free consultation with a skilled defense attorney near you.
