The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s Proposition 64 petition on the basis that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Appellant’s prior violent felony convictions were more than 33 years old and were all committed on the same day, in a single episode of criminal conduct. His current marijuana-related felonies may be redesignated as misdemeanors, and his remaining offense is neither a super strike offense nor a violent felony. Except for these offenses, he had not been convicted of criminal conduct since 1990 and had a minimal disciplinary record while in custody for his current convictions. More critically, granting the petition would not entitle him to be released or alter his time in prison. He would remain in custody until he is near 80, when he first becomes eligible for parole, and the Board of Parole Hearings would determine his dangerousness at that time. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct a new hearing on appellant’s petition.