People v. Negrete CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS275668
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron
Analysis
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to strike a serious/violent felony prior conviction under People v. Romero and sentenced him to four years in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to strike serious/violent felony prior conviction“Applying the correct standard of review to this record, it is very clear the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the prior.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the abuse of discretion standard required by People v. Carmony. The trial court's decision was supported by the record, which showed the defendant was on parole for robbery, had violated parole ten times, and had a history of violence and failure to engage in treatment. Therefore, the trial court did not act arbitrarily or irrationally in concluding the defendant fell within the spirit of the Three Strikes law. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the framework for trial courts to exercise discretion to strike a serious or violent felony prior conviction under Penal Code section 1385, considering the defendant's character, criminal history, and prospects for rehabilitation.
- relied: People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 — Establishes that a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to strike a prior conviction is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.
- relied: People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 — Clarifies that when exercising discretion to strike a prior, the court must consider whether the defendant should be deemed outside the spirit of the Three Strikes sentencing scheme.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the abuse of discretion standard of review and applies it to the specific facts of the record, such as the defendant's parole status and failure to seek treatment. It effectively distinguishes between the trial court's role in making the 'best' sentencing choice and the appellate court's limited role in reviewing for abuse of discretion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Negrete's Romero motion to strike his serious/violent felony prior and sentenced him to four years (midterm of two years doubled under the Three Strikes law) after his guilty plea to possession of a dirk or dagger. The Court of Appeal held the denial was not an abuse of discretion given his robbery parole status, ten parole violations, weapons history, and failure to pursue treatment, and affirmed the judgment.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to strike serious/violent felony prior conviction under Penal Code section 1385 (Romero motion)“Applying the correct standard of review to this record, it is very clear the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the prior.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The trial court expressly recognized its discretion under section 1385, considered the psychological evaluation, the defendant's extensive weapons and violence history, parole failures, and lack of treatment compliance, all of which are the Williams factors. Carmony requires a showing that the decision was arbitrary or irrational, and the appellant's argument that a different sentence would have been 'better' does not meet that burden. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Trial courts have discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike a serious/violent felony prior conviction in furtherance of justice under the Three Strikes law.
- relied: People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 — A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to strike a prior conviction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the appellant bears the burden of showing the decision was irrational or arbitrary.
- relied: People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 — In deciding whether to strike a prior, the court must consider the nature of the present and prior offenses and the defendant's background, character, and prospects to determine whether the defendant falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes scheme.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the correct abuse-of-discretion standard from Carmony and the Williams factors to a record showing the trial court expressly weighed the mental health evidence against extensive criminal and parole history. The analysis is brief but adequately answers the only argument raised, which did not seriously contend an abuse of discretion.
Opinion
Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Negrete CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D067860
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS275668)
JOEY NEGRETE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G.
Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr. and Susan Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. As part of a plea agreement, Joey Negrete entered a guilty plea to one count of possession of a dirk or dagger. (Pen. Code,1 § 21310.) Negrete also admitted a serious/violent felony prior conviction. (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i).) The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.
Negrete's motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior was denied by the court.
Negrete was sentenced to a determinate term of four years in prison. Negrete filed a timely notice of appeal, however, his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
In this appeal, Negrete challenges the trial court's decision to deny his motion to strike the prior conviction. He argues the "proper" decision would have been to strike the prior and impose a lesser sentence. As we will discuss, the question in reviewing a trial court's sentencing decision is whether there was an abuse of the court's broad discretion.
Whether reasonable minds might differ as to the "best" or "proper" choice is not a decision we should make on appeal. We must uphold the trial court's discretionary sentencing choices unless the appellant demonstrates a clear abuse of discretion. On this record, Negrete has not even come close to such a showing. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On October 29, 2014, Negrete entered the Ares Armour store, a gun shop in National City. Negrete began making statements about combating terrorism. The clerk 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 told him to leave the store if he was not going to purchase anything. Negrete produced a knife and said, "I could throw this knife at you before you could even draw your weapon." The clerk displayed a handgun and told Negrete to get out. Negrete fled from the store.
When he was contacted by officers, Negrete was hostile and refused to cooperate.
He was ultimately detained.
DISCUSSION
Negrete contends the court should have dismissed his serious/violent felony prior conviction and imposed a lesser sentence. He argues that such decision would have been the "proper" or "better" choice.
A. Background Prior to sentencing, Negrete was evaluated by a psychologist. The doctor concluded that Negrete suffered from serious substance abuse, which might be masking a more serious disorder. Based in part on the evaluation, Negrete filed a motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Following argument, the court denied the motion to strike the prior. The court said:
"Well, according to Dr. DeFrancesco, he himself is not sure that there are any underlying mental health issues. It says, 'Mr. Negrete has at least severe substance abuse dependency disorders that could be masking an underlying and separate severe psychotic illness,' not that he does, but could be.
[¶] . . . [¶]
3 "Negrete . . . has a severe history of violence and weapons in his background. He continues to carry weapons with him. He was unsuccessful on parole and he himself hasn't taken any steps to get off drugs.
"He went through juvenile court probation and they did all kinds of things for him there that didn't work, and he continued on his way.
"In this case I do not find that he is -- meets the factors described by Romero or that he would fall within my discretion pursuant to 1385 to strike a strike. In this case the court is not going to strike the strike.
"I have to -- there is no treatment program that's there for him. If he was going to get into a treatment program, it doesn't look like he would comply with that program because he hasn't complied with any programs in the past.
"So based on his history, I'm going to impose the mid-term of two years. That will be doubled pursuant to the California Three-Strikes law for the total term of four years."
The probation report shows that Negrete had two prior prison commitments, the last of which was for robbery. He had an extensive record of contacts with the criminal justice system, particularly with instances involving weapons. Negrete was on parole for the robbery offense at the time of the commission of the current offense.
B. Legal Principles Under section 1385, trial courts have the discretion to strike a serious/violent felony prior conviction and impose a sentence less than would be required if the prior remained in place. (Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 504.) We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to strike a prior conviction under the abuse of discretion standard. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374.)
4 Although courts have the discretion to strike serious/violent felony priors, the court must exercise its discretion, having in mind the purpose of the Three Strikes law.
In doing so, the court must consider the defendant's character, criminal history, background and prospects for rehabilitation. In short, the court must decide if the defendant should be deemed outside the spirit of the Three Strikes sentencing scheme.
(People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.)
C. Analysis Negrete does not seriously contend the trial court abused its discretion. Rather his arguments are advanced in terms such as the "proper" sentence. Negrete emphasizes the nature of his mental condition and his need for treatment, which unfortunately he has never accepted in the past. As we have expressed at the outset of this opinion, our task is not to determine what would have been the "best" or "proper" sentencing choice, that is the role of the trial judge. Our task is more narrow. We must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. In other words, was the decision arbitrary, irrational, uninformed, or so far from a reasonable choice that we can say the court abused its discretion.
Applying the correct standard of review to this record, it is very clear the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the prior. Negrete was on parole for robbery when he committed the current offense. The probation report shows he had violated his parole 10 times before the current crime. The court noted Negrete has never taken advantage of treatment or rehabilitation opportunities. Although the court recognized it had the authority to strike the prior, it declined to do so. The implied 5 finding that Negrete comes fully within the spirit of the Three Strikes law is supported by the record. There was no abuse of discretion in this case.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Carmony No. S115090 · 2004-07-08
- People v. Williams S057534 · 1998-01-05
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20