Plus, at least in the modern era, there are far fewer state court opinions that are decided by a single vote (4-3) than corresponding federal court opinions that are 5-4s.
All that's true.
But as they say, for every rule, there are exceptions. Today's California Supreme Court opinion is definitely an exception.
It's not unanimous. It's decided on a 4-3 vote. And the dissent is quite strongly worded.
You can read the entire 79 pages if you would like. But I think the following snippet from Chief Justice Guerrero's opinion gives one a sufficient feel for the rest:
"The majority today holds that a prior conviction for a gang-related felony cannot support an increased sentence under the
“Three Strikes” law or the prior serious felony enhancement
statute unless the prior conviction satisfies current law defining
a gang-related offense. 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. It is also unsupported by the plain
language of the relevant statutes and the intent of the voters
and the Legislature that enacted them. I cannot agree. . . .
In enacting the Three Strikes law, the electorate ensured
precisely this result, that is, a prior conviction for an offense or
statutory violation identified as a serious felony would remain a
prior serious felony conviction. The electorate locked in the list
of serious felonies as of a certain date, thereby ensuring that
future legislative enactments could not remove an identified
felony from the list. . . .
The majority eschews this straightforward analysis and
embraces an obscure syntactical argument that no party has raised. The majority observes that the statute identifying a
gang-related felony as a serious felony offense is phrased in the
present conditional tense. [Cite] The majority tepidly explains that
this phrasing “suggests an inquiry under current law,” and it
contrasts this phrasing with hypothetical phrasing in the past
tense. [Cite]
The majority’s reasoning does not withstand scrutiny. To
the extent it is meaningful, the present tense phrasing is
compelled by its statutory context, which has nothing to do with
prior convictions or recidivist sentencing schemes like the Three
Strikes law."
I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to read something with that tenor in the United States Supreme Court. It's far more unusual to hear it from the California Supremes.
But there you have it.
