People v. Guilford

In People v. Guilford (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 651, the Court explained: "Under the three strikes law generally, a trial court may look to the whole record of a prior conviction to determine whether the facts meet the definition of a strike, including looking to a prior appellate decision. We see no reason why Proposition 36 would change this rule. . If the prior opinion does not sufficiently establish the facts, 'the defendant, who suffered the conviction and took the appeal, would know of and be able to challenge any material flaws or omissions in the opinion.' . Although defendant has indicated he wants to air those facts at a hearing on future dangerousness, and claims he was denied a hearing to contest the trial court's interpretation of the facts, he makes no claim that our prior opinion misstated them. In such circumstances, we see no reason why the trial court's use of our prior opinion to determine the facts was improper. To the extent our prior appellate opinion may be viewed as 'hearsay,' it is still admissible in the context of a Proposition 36 eligibility review. Reliable hearsay is deemed sufficient for purposes of revoking probation or parole, somewhat analogous proceedings where a defendant's due process rights are less than those at the initial criminal proceeding. . If defendant had thought the facts stated in our prior opinion were materially inaccurate, he had the remedy of petitioning for a rehearing. 'If a party disagrees with the Court of Appeal's selection of the material facts or identification of the applicable law, the party can petition for a rehearing and point out the deficiencies in the court's opinion.' . Defendant did not file a petition for rehearing in this court. Therefore, we presume the facts previously stated by this court were faithful to the appellate record before us and reliably summarized the evidence against defendant." (Id. at pp. 660-661.)