 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Finch2/19/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Robert L. Finch appeals from the judgment entered upon his negotiated plea of no contest to possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and his admission of a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). He was sentenced to 32 months in prison. He obtained a certificate of probable cause and contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike his prior felony convictions to enable him to qualify for probation and drug treatment under section 1210.1, hereafter referred to as Proposition 36. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The record establishes that in the early morning hours of August 1, 2001, two Los Angeles police officers recovered from appellant's shirt pocket an off-white solid material determined to contain 0.22 grams of a substance containing cocaine.
Appellant was charged with possession of cocaine. The information alleged three prior robbery convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law, one sustained in 1982 and two in 1992, and also alleged a prison term for the 1992 conviction.
Before the matter was called for trial, appellant requested that the trial court dismiss the strike allegations in the interests of justice pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) and section 1385. The trial court stated, "My understanding is that the People were willing to strike all but one of the strikes -- [ ] . . . [ ] -- treat this as a second strike offense. [ ] Based on my looking at the defendant's record, the fact that he has not been arrest-free -- I know you said he has no parole violations, and he certainly has probation violations over and over again. Whether the court caught it or not, I know that in each case they would have told him to obey all laws, and in each case there's another conviction very shortly thereafter. Some cases not even a year goes by before another conviction. [ ] So I don't believe it's appropriate, based on this defendant's particular background and history, for the court to strike all of the strikes. [ ] I do think that it is reasonable for the People to treat it, however, as a second strike rather than a third strike case based on the facts. [ ] It's your representation it was a very small amount?" Both counsel agreed it was a small amount of contraband. The trial court continued, "And the court had indicated that Prop 36 -- my understanding is that because he has not been free of prison commitment for even five years before he committed this offense, he's not eligible for Prop 36 treatment."
Prior to entering his no contest plea, before a different judge, appellant personally stated to the trial court, "I just have one request from the court because I considered your offer, but okay, like after I read this article about the Prop. 36 and before this article the court was willing to let me have the Proposition 36, but the only problem I have is I have been out of prison for one year, but the judge was otherwise willing to allow me to go to Prop. 36. Now with this ruling that came from the Second Appellate Court --"
The trial court stated, "I understand that just sets forth that the court does have the power under Romero to strike. So you are asking thr
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|