 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Baker4/29/2002
de the bounds of reason' under the applicable law and the relevant facts [citations]" will such a decision be disturbed on appeal. (Ibid.)
The court in Williams summarized our job in reviewing such a decision: " n ruling whether to strike or vacate a prior serious and/or violent felony conviction allegation or finding under the Three Strikes law, on its own motion, `in furtherance of justice' pursuant to Penal Code section 1385[, subdivision] (a), or in reviewing such a ruling, the court . . . must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant . . . should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies. If it is striking or vacating an allegation or finding, it must set forth its reasons in an order entered on the minutes, and if it is reviewing the striking or vacating of such allegation or finding, it must pass on the reasons so set forth." (People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161, italics added.)
After considering the presentence report and the comments of counsel, the trial court denied the request to strike, stating: "The court is aware that I have the authority to strike the strike. [ ] I decline to do so. [ ] Although the strike occurred some time ago, in review of the defendant's record, he has not been free from incarceration for any period at all since then; it's a steady stream of convictions, some violent some not. But he has not lead any part of his life where he was law-abiding. [ ] So it would seem inappropriate to the court to strike the strike in this instance." Appellant had argued in support of his request that the current offense was nonviolent and that the strike prior, a 1977 mayhem conviction, was remote. Those arguments are repeated herein.
Since People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th 148, "the overwhelming majority of California appellate courts have reversed the dismissal of, or affirmed the refusal to dismiss, a strike of those defendants with a long and continuous criminal career. [Citations.]" (People v. Strong (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 328, 338.) In rejecting an argument focusing on the nonviolent nature of the current offense, the Strong court stated that "the nonviolent or non-threatening nature of the felony cannot alone take the crime outside the spirit of the law. [Citation.] To conclude otherwise would rewrite the statute to only trigger a longer prison sentence for those defendants who commit a violent or threatening felony after having committed at least one strike. That is not the law's letter or spirit." (Id. at p. 344.) The current offense in Strong was the sale of a substance falsely represented to be cocaine. (Id. at p. 332.)
The remoteness of the strike prior is another factor to be considered by the trial court. However, where the defendant has not led a legally blameless life since suffering the prior, this factor "is not significant." (People v. Gaston (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 310, 321.) "In view of these facts, we cannot conclude that appellant led a crime-free life during the period between his 1981 strike priors and his current crimes, a factor which would give significance to the remoteness in time of those strikes. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
The presentence report reflects that since sustaining his strike prior and spanning a period of approximately 30 years, appellant has been charged and/or convicted of the following: possession of a switchblade knife; grand theft; sale of tear gas; resisting arrest; possessing a weapon in jail; felon in possession of a firearm; contempt of court; dama
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|