18 Cal.5th 246
Cal.2025Background
- Yacob Dawit Dain was convicted in California of several serious felonies, including home invasion robbery and kidnapping; he had a prior 2006 strike conviction under the Three Strikes law.
- Dain filed a Romero motion (to dismiss a strike), which was initially denied in 2019. Upon resentencing in 2023 (after an appellate court narrowed which of his priors qualified as strikes), the trial court granted his renewed Romero motion and dismissed the 2006 strike, citing recent legislative changes and the age of the prior.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court’s reasons for dismissal were legally insufficient, and ordered the strike reinstated and Dain resentenced under the Three Strikes law.
- The Supreme Court reviewed solely the proper remedy when a trial court abuses its discretion in granting a Romero motion, not the merits of whether the strike should have been dismissed.
- The Supreme Court majority found the Court of Appeal should have remanded for a new exercise of discretion (allowing the trial court to reconsider dismissal of the strike), rather than directly ordering reinstatement of the strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate courts must always remand for trial court reconsideration after finding abuse of discretion in dismissing a strike under Romero, or may direct reinstatement. | The Court of Appeal was right to order reinstatement because the record showed no legal basis to dismiss the strike, and a remand would be futile. | The remedy should be a remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion anew, in case new arguments/evidence or proper reasoning could justify dismissal. | Remand for new exercise of trial court discretion is the usual remedy; appellate substitution of judgment is inappropriate absent a clear basis to foreclose discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (establishes trial courts’ authority to dismiss strikes in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (provides factors courts must consider in a Romero motion and guidance for appellate review)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing trial court’s decision on Romero motions)
- People v. Bonnetta, 46 Cal.4th 143 (Cal. 2009) (requirements for trial courts to state reasons for dismissals under section 1385)