In a unanimous decision Monday, the California Supreme Court ruled people convicted of a “third strike” aren’t entitled to a reduced sentence under voter-approved reforms if they were armed during the commission of their third crime.

The case involves Mario Estrada, who pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft for robbing a Radio Shack in Los Angeles in 1996. It was his third offense, so he received 25 years to life in prison under California’s “Three Strikes” law.

…

“To find that an inmate was armed with a firearm during the commission of the inmate’s third strike offense, a court reviewing a Proposition 36 recall petition may rely on facts underlying counts dismissed pursuant to the inmate’s plea agreement – so long as those facts establish the defendant was armed during his offense of conviction,” Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar wrote for the court.

…

“We see no indication in the voter information guide that the act was designed to equate the ‘violent felons’ category solely with those convicted of inherently violent offenses,” Cuellar wrote. “To the contrary – we think it more faithful to Proposition 36’s crucial distinction to interpret its conception of violent offenders as including not only those inmates convicted of inherently violent offenses but also those who committed nonviolent offenses in a violent manner.”