The California Supreme Court delivered a closely divided 4-3 decision in *People v. Fletcher* on August 25, 2025, addressing critical questions about the application of the state's Three Strikes law in light of recent legislative changes to gang offense statutes.
Justice Liu authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Kruger, Groban, and Evans. Chief Justice Guerrero filed a dissenting opinion, with Justices Corrigan and Jenkins concurring in the dissent. The case originated in Riverside County Superior Court before proceeding through the Fourth Appellate District, Division Two.
The Three Strikes law represents one of California's most stringent sentencing schemes, requiring courts to double or sometimes triple punishment for felony offenses when defendants have previously been convicted of crimes qualifying as "serious" or "violent" felonies. These prior convictions, known as "strikes" or "strike priors," are specifically enumerated in state statutes.
Under the current framework, defendants facing charges for serious felonies are also subject to a five-year prior serious felony enhancement, commonly referred to as a "nickel prior," in addition to any Three Strikes enhancement. The statutory definition of "serious" felonies includes "any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22," which governs substantive gang offenses and gang enhancements.
The *Fletcher* case stems from significant legislative changes enacted in 2021 through Assembly Bill No. 333, which created the STEP Forward Act of 2021. This legislation substantially amended Section 186.22, fundamentally altering the legal landscape for gang-related prosecutions in California.
Assembly Bill 333 modified critical elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing several key definitions. The legislation restructured the definitions of "criminal street gang," "pattern of criminal activity," and clarified "what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang." These changes represented a significant shift in how California approaches gang-related criminal activity.
The legislative amendments have created complex questions about how the Three Strikes law should be applied to cases involving gang-related offenses under the revised statutory framework. The changes to Section 186.22 have particular significance for sentencing enhancements, as gang-related felonies can qualify as serious felonies under the Three Strikes scheme.
While the complete reasoning of the court's decision in *Fletcher* was not fully detailed in available materials, the case clearly addresses the intersection between the reformed gang offense statutes and the Three Strikes sentencing provisions. This intersection has created uncertainty in lower courts about how to properly apply enhancement provisions in cases involving gang allegations.
The close 4-3 split in the decision indicates the complexity of the legal issues presented and suggests significant disagreement among the justices about the proper interpretation of the statutory changes. Such narrow margins in Supreme Court decisions often reflect cases where legal precedent and statutory interpretation present genuinely difficult questions without clear answers.
The timing of the decision, coming more than three years after Assembly Bill 333's enactment, suggests that courts have been grappling with the practical implications of the legislative changes. The *Fletcher* decision will likely provide crucial guidance to trial courts throughout California that have been wrestling with similar sentencing questions.
For defense attorneys representing clients with potential gang allegations and prior strike convictions, the decision will have immediate practical significance. The ruling will affect how prosecutors and defense counsel approach plea negotiations and sentencing arguments in cases involving gang enhancements.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions in California's approach to criminal justice reform. While Assembly Bill 333 was designed to narrow the application of gang enhancements and address concerns about their disproportionate impact, the Three Strikes law remains a powerful sentencing tool that can dramatically increase prison terms for repeat offenders.
Prosecutors will need to carefully analyze the court's reasoning to understand how the decision affects their charging decisions and sentencing recommendations in cases involving both gang allegations and potential Three Strikes enhancements.
The *Fletcher* decision comes at a time when California continues to refine its approach to criminal sentencing and gang prosecutions. The state has undertaken various reform efforts in recent years, including changes to felony murder rules and reconsideration of lengthy sentencing enhancements.
Going forward, the decision will serve as binding precedent for all California courts addressing similar questions about the interaction between reformed gang statutes and Three Strikes sentencing provisions. Lower courts will be required to follow the Supreme Court's interpretation when facing comparable factual and legal circumstances.
The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Guerrero, supported by two other justices, indicates that alternative interpretations of the relevant statutes were actively considered by the court. The substance of the dissent may provide insight into potential future challenges or legislative responses to the majority's holding.
Legal practitioners and scholars will closely analyze the complete text of both the majority and dissenting opinions once fully available to understand the broader implications for California's criminal sentencing framework and the ongoing evolution of gang prosecution standards.