California entitles certain incarcerated individuals to petition to be resentenced. But as of January 1, 2025, this entitlement does not extend to -- and to be clear, I'm quoting here -- "an
individual who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision
(b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and sentenced to death or a life
term without the possibility of parole."
The Legislature passed that amendment because it wanted to make sure that Richard Allen Davis, who was found guilty of the high-profile kidnapping and murder of 12-year old Polly Klass, was not eligible for resentencing.
The statute says that you're not entitled to resentencing if you've been "convicted of a sexually violent offense [] and sentenced to [] a life term without the possibility of parole." Does that exclusion apply to someone who, like Henry Robinson here, was sentenced to life without parole but NOT convicted of a sexually violent offense?
In other words, does "and" in the statute mean "and," or does it instead mean "or?"
The trial court held that it did, indeed, mean "and." Gotta be both. The Court of Appeal affirms.
Justice Detjen's opinion seems obviously correct to me. It's not even close.
If the Legislature feels like changing the law, of course, it's free to do so. But, generally, "and" does indeed mean "and." Particularly when, as here, other portions of the statute make clear that the Legislature knows how to use the word "or" when it feels like it.
Yep. 100% right.
P.S. - I wish I could run a 3-hour half marathon at age 68!
