Court Rejects AG Bonta’s Bid to Release Violent Criminal
A violent gang member serving a prison sentence for stalking his ex-girlfriend has been denied early release by California’s Third District Court of Appeal. Kelly Kimble received his third felony conviction in 2008 for stalking his ex-girlfriend. He was sentenced under the state’s “Three Strikes” law to 25-years-to-life plus one year based on a prior prison term enhancement. His two prior convictions were for attempted kidnapping and making criminal threats. As reported by the Metropolitan News Enterprise, in 2013 Kelly had petitioned for re-sentencing after state voters adopted Proposition 36, the “Three Strikes Reform Act.” That measure allowed criminals convicted of a third felony, not considered violent or serious, who had only one violent prior conviction to receive a reduced sentence at the discretion of a judge. The judge in this case explained that Kimble’s prior acts “involved physical violence” that he had violated conditions of probation and conditions of parole, that he “continues to defy authority year after year.” Twice assaulting other prisoners, and maintained gang ties. In 2014 the Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision. Then in 2022 Governor Newsom signed SB 483, another pro-criminal release bill, into law.
That bill invalidated the state’s prior prison term enhancement. Kimble again petitioned for re-sentencing claiming that the new law invalidated one of his prior felony convictions. The Butte County judge removed Kimble’s one year enhancement but refused to consider shortening his 25-years-to-life sentence, finding that he continued to be a “danger to public safety.” Last July the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision. Two weeks later, the California Attorney General changed his position from opposing the re-sentencing of Kimble, to supporting it and urged the appeals court to reconsider his petition.
In its decision on February 12 the court stated:
“The Attorney General did not explain the basis for his change in position, cite to any recent authority that might have triggered the sudden reversal, or point out any errors of law or fact in our opinion. After due consideration of the Attorney General’s rehearing petition, it was denied on the merits.
Having carefully reconsidered the matter, we again decline to accept the Attorney General’s bare concession. As a general rule, we are not bound by concessions made by the People in a criminal case . . . . And here, we are not inclined to give the Attorney General’s concession significant deference, as the issue before us turns on a question of statutory interpretation, such that the analysis is not invalidated simply by a change in party position.”
This is just one of many occasions where Attorney General Bonta, the chief law enforcement officer in California, has chosen to represent the interests of a convicted criminal against those of crime victims and the law-abiding public.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
The only explanation the Attorney General provided for their change of view between their successful defense of the trial court’s judgment and their reversal of position in the Supreme Court is found in their Answer to the Petition for Review. “After the Court of Appeal issued its decision, however, and upon further analysis and consideration, the People concluded that, while there are persuasive arguments to be made on either side of the issue, the better view is that the general direction contained in section 1172.75 controls.” (APFR at p.6.)
Based on this change of position the Supreme Court referred the case back to the Third District Court of Appeal. I guess the Third District did not agree with their unreasoned “better view.”