99 Cal.App.5th 399
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Yacob Dain was convicted by a jury of home invasion robbery, kidnapping, assault with a firearm, and other charges; it was found he had two prior gang convictions qualifying as strikes under California's Three Strikes law and as serious felonies.
- In a prior appeal, the findings on his prior strike/serious felony convictions were reversed due to a change in the interpretation of the gang participation statute, and the case was remanded for retrial of those allegations and resentencing.
- On remand, the prosecution retried only one prior, which was again found to be a qualifying strike and serious felony.
- The trial court, having previously denied a Romero motion to strike the prior, granted it on remand, citing changes in sentencing law and “remoteness.” It also dismissed the five-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667(a) and imposed the middle term for the main offense.
- The People appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in dismissing the strike and the enhancement, and in imposing the middle term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of §1385(c) to Three Strikes dismissal | Not applicable—Three Strikes is a sentencing scheme, not an enhancement | §1385(c) (as amended by S.B. 81 and A.B. 600) applies, allowing court to consider remoteness and other mitigating factors | §1385(c) does not apply to Three Strikes strike dismissal decisions |
| Was trial court's grant of Romero motion (dismissing strike) an abuse of discretion? | Yes; Dain is not outside the Three Strikes law’s spirit due to recidivism and seriousness of offenses | No; law has changed, remoteness is a major mitigating factor now | Yes, the trial court abused its discretion—Dain not outside the law’s spirit |
| Dismissal of five-year enhancement under §667(a) | Also abuse of discretion for same reasons as strike | Properly dismissed due to §1385(c) and remoteness | No abuse of discretion—§1385(c) applied to enhancements (not to Three Strikes) |
| Imposition of middle term for home invasion robbery | Should have imposed upper term due to aggravating history | Middle term justified by changed laws and discretion | No abuse of discretion—People failed to show sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial courts may dismiss prior strikes under Three Strikes law in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (guidance for considering whether a defendant is outside the spirit of Three Strikes law)
- People v. Garcia, 20 Cal.4th 490 (Cal. 1999) (factors that may warrant dismissal of strikes, including nonviolent history and rehabilitation)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (stringent standard for dismissing strikes; strong presumption against dismissal)
- People v. Salazar, 15 Cal.5th 416 (Cal. 2023) (Three Strikes law's strong presumption for harsher sentences and requirement for explicit justification to depart)