Error and/or relief
We agree with the defendant that the court applied an incorrect legal standard when it decided the Romero motion, so we vacate her sentence and remand for the court to reconsider the Romero motion. The court erroneously believed it did not have discretion to dismiss the strike unless mental illness played a substantial part in the crime. The matter is remanded with directions to reconsider the Romero motion and then to resentence the defendant.
First Holding:
Section 1385(a) gives trial courts discretion to strike prior felony conviction allegations in furtherance of justice. The length of the defendant’s sentence is the overarching consideration because the underlying purpose of striking prior strikes is the avoidance of unjust sentences. The court must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s present offense and prior strikes, and the particulars of their background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the spirit of the three strikes law in whole or in part.
Authority:
PEN 1385
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530
People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 500
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161
Second Holding:
We review the ruling on a Romero motion for abuse of discretion. The court abuses its discretion if the record affirmatively shows that the court misunderstood the scope of its discretion or applied the wrong legal standard.
Authority:
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376
People v. Lua (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1020
Third Holding:
The court applied the wrong legal standard when it reasoned that if the defendant’s actions were “due to drugs and alcohol, then that is not a DSM-4 or 5, and the Court is not allowed to strike the strikes.” A person’s drug or alcohol use relates to their background, and whether they were under the influence when they committed an offense relates to the nature and circumstances of the offense.
The defendant’s background and the nature and circumstances of the prior offense are mandatory considerations, according to our Supreme Court. Moreover, a defendant’s substance abuse may be a mitigating factor that supports dismissing the prior strike, regardless of whether there is a mental health diagnosis under the DSM. The court therefore applied an incorrect legal standard and misunderstood the scope of its discretion when it concluded that it was not allowed to dismiss the strikes because they resulted from the defendant’s drug or alcohol use.
Authority:
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 [courts must consider the nature and circumstances of the prior strike offenses, as well as the defendant’s background, character, and prospects]
People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 494, 503
People v. Avila (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1134, 1143-1144
Fourth Holding:
Moreover, under the information available in the record, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result but for the court’s error.
Authority:
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836