Defendant was ineligible for resentencing under PC 1170.91 (military), where his underlying offense was a “super strike.” Any error in failing to hold a hearing was not prejudicial where defendant was ineligible as a matter of law. The Court rejected appellant’s argument that legislative history shows that PC 1170.91(c), which creates an eligibility carveout, excludes only individuals sentenced under the Three Strikes law with a prior super strike, and not individuals like himself who were convicted only of one felony which is a super strike. Here there was no need to consider legislative history, when subdivision (c) unambiguously excludes anyone who has committed an offense described by PC 667 (e)(2)(C)(iv) (super strikes), whether as a first-time offense or as a prior offense.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A170760.PDF