How have the courts dealt with the issue of three strikes?

Defendant has filed a letter brief with this court that is largely incomprehensible. To the extent that defendant appears to be arguing that his three strike sentence violates the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses of the federal Constitution, we note that the time for such challenges has past and the courts have, in any event, consistently upheld the constitutionality of the three strikes law. (See, e.g., Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, 728; Witte v. United States (1995) 515 U.S. 389, 400.) Defendant's argument that the "people failed to carry the burden of proving [he] pose[s] an 'unreasonable risk of danger to public safety' " under section 1170.126, subdivision (f) is similarly unavailing. Subdivision (f) is applicable only if a petitioner meets the criteria for resentencing under subdivision (e).³

Page 3

Since defendant is statutorily ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126, we shall affirm the order denying his petition.

The order is affirmed.

/s/_________
Pollak, J.

We concur:

/s/_________
McGuiness, P. J.

/s/_________
Jenkins, J.

Footnotes:

^1. All statutory references are to the Penal Code