People v. Elsner CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD282562
- Trial judge
- Laura W. Halgren
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke
Analysis
The trial court denied Elsner's motion to strike his prior serious felony conviction under *People v. Superior Court (Romero)*, sentencing him to 32 months in prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion or due process violation in the trial court's decision.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to strike prior serious felony conviction (Romero motion)“We will find there is no basis for Elsner’s claims and that the court acted well within its discretion and was fully informed when it denied the so-called Romero motion.” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it was fully informed of the defendant's mental health history and provided a reasoned explanation for denying the motion based on the nature of the prior offense and the current conduct. The court found the trial court's balancing of factors to be within the bounds of reason. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the standard for striking prior serious or violent felony convictions under the Three Strikes law.
- relied: People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490 — Decisions granting or denying Romero motions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.
- relied: People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 — A ruling falls outside the bounds of reason if it is arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968 — The party attacking the trial court's decision bears the burden of showing an abuse of broad sentencing discretion.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the abuse of discretion standard and cites the appropriate binding authorities (*Romero*, *Garcia*, *Williams*, *Alvarez*) to support its conclusion. The court adequately addresses the appellant's specific argument regarding mental health by pointing to the record evidence that the trial court considered these factors.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Elsner's Romero motion to strike his 2012 criminal-threats strike prior after he pleaded guilty to vandalizing a church with a swastika, and sentenced him to the low term doubled (32 months). The Court of Appeal held the trial court was fully informed of Elsner's mental health history, acted within its discretion, and did not deny due process, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of defendant's Romero motion to strike his prior serious felony (criminal threats) conviction under Penal Code section 1385“The record shows thoughtful and careful analysis of factors for and against granting the motion. The court, who reduced the sentence recommended by the probation officer, acted with full knowledge of relevant facts and appropriate balancing of the interests of the public as well as those of Elsner.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The trial court's quoted remarks show it considered the nature of the prior strike (specific threats of a mass shooting), the similarity of the current hate-motivated offense, and the mental health diagnoses, and it used those diagnoses to impose the low term rather than the probation officer's four-year recommendation. Under Williams and Carmony, declining to strike a strike where the prior and current offenses are similar in character is well within the bounds of reason, and the record refutes the claim that the court was unaware of the mental health evidence. The court did not expressly cite Carmony's framework or the Williams 'spirit of the Three Strikes law' factors, but the result is plainly defensible. |
Rejection of defendant's due process claim premised on the court's alleged failure to consider his mental health history“nothing in the court’s remarks hints at lack of knowledge of facts or any arbitrary or irrational conclusions by the court.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The due process claim was derivative of the abuse-of-discretion claim; because the record showed the court read the psychological reports and expressly weighed the mental health diagnoses, there was no factual basis for a claim that the court sentenced on misinformation or ignored material evidence. The appellate court did not articulate a separate standard or cite due process authority, but the result follows from its factual finding. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Trial courts have discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to strike prior serious/violent felony conviction allegations in furtherance of justice under the Three Strikes law.
- relied: People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490 — A trial court's ruling on a motion to strike a prior strike is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- relied: People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 — A Romero ruling is an abuse of discretion only if it falls outside the bounds of reason; the court must consider the nature of the present and prior offenses and the defendant's background, character, and prospects to determine whether he falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law.
- relied: People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968 — The party attacking a sentencing decision bears the burden of clearly showing the decision was irrational or arbitrary.
- missed: People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 — The Three Strikes law establishes a sentencing norm and creates a strong presumption that any sentence conforming to it is rational and proper; a refusal to strike a prior will be an abuse of discretion only in limited, extraordinary circumstances, and the trial court is presumed to have considered all relevant factors absent affirmative evidence to the contrary.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion applies the correct abuse-of-discretion standard with the proper Supreme Court authorities and the trial court's quoted remarks squarely refute the claim that it ignored the mental health evidence. It does not cite Carmony, the leading authority on review of refusals to strike, nor does it separately analyze the due process claim or walk through the Williams factors, though the result is clearly defensible.
Opinion
Filed 1/6/21 P. v. Elsner 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, D077126
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD282562)
TRAVIS ELSNER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed. Kelly E. DuFord, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In this appeal, Travis Young Elsner challenges the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to strike his serious/violent felony prior conviction (prior strike). He contends the trial court failed to consider important facts about his mental health history. Elsner argues the court’s alleged failure was an abuse of discretion, which also denied him due process. We will find there is no basis for Elsner’s claims and that the court acted well within its discretion and was fully informed when it denied the so-called Romero1 motion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During Pride Weekend in San Diego, Elsner vandalized a church. The church had a sign stating the church’s inclusive view of the importance of tolerance for differing races, views, and preferences. Elsner wrote “Fuck you” on the sign and burned a swastika into it as well.
Elsner pleaded guilty to vandalizing a church (Pen. Code,2 § 594.3, subd. (b)), and admitted a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). At the sentencing hearing, Elsner brought a Romero motion to strike the “strike prior.” The court denied the motion and sentenced Elsner to the low term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of the prior strike. Elsner appeals, challenging only the denial of his Romero motion. We will reject his challenge and affirm. In 2012, Elsner suffered a serious felony conviction for criminal threats. The threats were to kill his mother and to engage in a mass school shooting. The trial court was aware of the facts surrounding the 2012 conviction. In his sentencing brief, Elsner further advised the court of his mental health issues and submitted two reports from psychologists discussing his current and past mental health issues. He attached a narrative from his mother’s witness interview forgiving him for the prior threats and asking the court to grant Elsner probation.
1 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. 2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The probation report outlined Elsner’s criminal history from the time of his 2012 conviction. Elsner’s social media activities dealing with various “hate” groups was also discussed at some length. Ultimately, the probation officer recommended a four-year prison term. After hearing arguments from both sides and considering the written submissions as well as the probation officer’s report, the court said:
“Well, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the case and what is appropriate, and I just do not think that it is appropriate for me—I have discretion, I know, but I don't think it’s proper to exercise my discretion to strike the strike given the nature of it with the serious specific threats that were made.
“And in this case, although fortunately no one was hurt and the damage was minimal, any time a swastika is used in connection with groups that are discriminated against, it conveys a message that makes others fearful. And so the combination of the previous strike being similar in nature—not completely the same, but still of the same category, I just don't think it’s proper to strike it, and I’m not going to.
“But then in balancing what the appropriate sentence would be, the People certainly make sense in suggesting that this could be a middle-term case, and there certainly are sufficient aggravating factors that might justify that. But when I also look at the mental health diagnoses that he’s had and the fact that nobody was actually physically harmed and the fact that he has never actually served time in prison before, I do think that the low term is appropriate. So it would be the low term doubled of 32 months.”
A. Legal Principles Decision granting or denying so-called Romero motions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard of review. (People v. Garcia (1999) 20 3 Cal.4th 490, 498-499.) We examine the decisions to determine whether the ruling “ ‘falls outside the bounds of reason.’ ” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162.) The person attacking the trial court’s decision bears the burden of showing the trial court abused its broad sentencing discretion. (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977.) B. Analysis Elsner contends the court abused its discretion and denied him due process by denying his Romero motion. His argument is difficult to understand based on this record. Essentially, he argues the court misunderstood the facts regarding his mental status or at least failed to consider or discuss it adequately. The argument has no sound basis in this record. Elsner’s mental history was discussed at length by the defense, the court, the probation officer’s report and the defense submission, which included reports of psychologists. The court stated it had read all materials, considered all arguments and was fully aware of Elsner’s history and mental status. To the extent Elsner would have liked more discussion leading to a different result, nothing in the court’s remarks hints at lack of knowledge of facts or any arbitrary or irrational conclusions by the court. The record shows thoughtful and careful analysis of factors for and against granting the motion. The court, who reduced the sentence recommended by the probation officer, acted with full knowledge of relevant facts and appropriate balancing of the interests of the public as well as those of Elsner. There was no abuse of discretion nor denial of due process. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
4 HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Williams S057534 · 1998-01-05
- People v. Superior Court No. S053029 · 1997-01-16
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20