 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Stamps2/7/2002
en a statute expires or is repealed during the pendency of a proceeding, the courts must look to the Legislative intent in determining whether or not the statutory punishment should be imposed].)
B. Motion to Strike
The trial court's implicit decision to deny appellant's motion, under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, to strike her prior robbery conviction was not "`outside the bounds of reason'" given the record before the court. (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162; People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 503.) Appellant's prior criminal history included numerous offenses and the one serious violent felony, the robbery "strike" alleged in the information. The punishment imposed in those earlier cases did nothing to rehabilitate appellant, and thus she was within the target area of the three strikes law. (See People v. Cooper (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 815.) Appellant was on parole at the time she committed the instant offenses. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b).) Her actions resulted in the death of one child and the serious bodily injury of two others, all vulnerable innocents whose well being was the responsibility of appellant, an adult who should have known better. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1) & (3).)
Moreover, the record supports a conclusion that appellant's behavior after the incident exhibited a hard-hearted lack of remorse, a refusal to accept responsibility for her actions, and a selfish and self-seeking effort to cast on an innocent adult, Stauff, the blame for harming three innocent children. She initially lied to the investigating police officers and, not surprisingly, the jury by its verdict found the defense case she presented, including her testimony, false and contrived.
The record also shows the trial court acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives after a thoughtful and conscientious assessment of all relevant factors, including individualized factors pertaining to appellant. (See People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 159 [A trial court must look at all relevant and appropriate factors and consider them in relation to one another. No single factor governs]; People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 973; People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 590-591; People v. Garcia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 501-502; see also People v. Superior Court (Romero), supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530.) There was no abuse of discretion.
C. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Appellant's sentence did not violate either the state or the federal constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
Appellant rests her position on the fact that she turned down a proposed plea agreement with a thirty-two month stipulated sentence. She now says that she should not be subject to the much longer "skewed" sentence ultimately imposed by the trial court "simply because she elected to exercise her constitutional right to have a jury trial."
Appellant was not hoodwinked by the plea offer. When the offer was made, appellant was told she faced a maximum sentence of more than thirty years if she went to trial. The trial court noted the disparity between the offer and the maximum possible sentence and commented that appellant's decision to go to trial was "an interesting gamble for [appellant] to take." Thus, whatever reason may have underlain the district attorney's willingness to be generous, appellant was under no illusions when she rejected the deal. Appellant did not get the stiff sentence because she went to trial; she got the stiff sentence because she refused the gift tendered by the prosecution, the last of many poor choices -- they commenced
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|