 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Stamps2/7/2002
with, as found by the jury, her decision to take the wheel of the car on July 25, 1998, in an intoxicated state -- made by appellant in this case.
Defendants sentenced to substantially enhanced sentences under California's recidivism statute have repeatedly challenged those sentences under both the federal and state Constitutions. These challenges have been rejected uniformly by this court (see People v. Cooper, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th 815) and in a multitude of published opinions from other districts of the Court of Appeal. (See People v. Cortez (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 276, 286 [collected cases].) Recidivist statutes have also been approved by the United States Supreme Court, even where no serious or violent felony has ever been committed. (See Rummel v. Estelle (1980) 445 U.S. 263 [Texas recidivist statute requiring life imprisonment upon conviction of a third felony upheld for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36 and obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses].)
Although the issue of cruel and unusual punishment, particularly under the state Constitution, usually requires a rather lengthy, threefold analysis (see In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 425-429), we believe there must be a point when the standard version of this argument may be summarily rejected. (See, e.g., People v. Cortez, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 286.) To the extent appellant relies on the nature of her offense, the disproportionate punishment for what she describes as more serious (but nonrecidivist) crimes, and the disproportionate punishment under the recidivist statutes of other jurisdictions, we summarily reject defendant's argument for the reasons stated fully in People v. Cooper, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at pages 825 through 828. In explaining why the trial court's refusal to strike appellant's prior robbery conviction was not an abuse of discretion, we cataloged the factors which justified the imposition of the three strikes sentence in this case -- i.e., appellant's failure to rehabilitate, her failure to perform successfully on parole, her flagrant disregard for the laws which govern a civilized society, her refusal to accept responsibility for her actions, and the extreme cost her unlawful acts inflicted on her innocent victims. Under these circumstances, we do not find the sentence imposed to be either cruel or unusual under any constitutional standard.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to stay, pursuant to section 654, enforcement of the Vehicle Code section 23182 one-year enhancement appended to count 1 pending appellant's successful completion of all parts of the unstayed sentence. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare and appropriately distribute an amended abstract.
WE CONCUR:
Vartabedian, J.
Cornell, J.
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.
|
|