People v. Hand CA3
C080216
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- Defendant David Hand pled no contest to second degree burglary and admitted a prior robbery "strike." He previously served ~10+ years on two 2001 robbery convictions (with a gun enhancement).
- After the plea, the court allowed him to try a six‑month residential drug treatment program as an opportunity to demonstrate suitability for Romero relief and probation; he was discharged about six weeks later.
- Defendant missed a court date and was absent from the court for four to five months after discharge; he said relapse and addiction motivated his conduct and requested another chance in a letter interpreted as a Romero motion and probation request.
- The People opposed, emphasizing his lengthy prior record, prior prison time, post‑release felony convictions and parole/probation failures, and that he failed to complete the offered treatment.
- The trial court denied Romero relief and probation, sentenced him to the upper term doubled for the strike (six years), and explained he was not a suitable candidate given his criminal history and supervision failures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a Romero motion to strike a prior serious/violent felony strike | The People argued denial was proper because Hand is a career offender with serious prior strikes, post‑release crimes, and failed treatment/supervision; he falls within the Three Strikes scheme | Hand argued the court failed to properly consider nature/circumstances of offenses, his background, prospects, addiction, lack of violent act in record of prior strike, and that treatment failure should not foreclose relief | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; record shows court knew its discretion, balanced relevant facts, and Hand falls within the spirit of Three Strikes |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court has discretion to strike prior serious/violent felony for sentencing purposes)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (standard of review for Romero decisions and requirement that courts articulate reviewable reasons; affirm if discretionary balancing occurred)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (factors to consider when deciding to strike a prior serious/violent felony)
- People v. Gillispie, 60 Cal.App.4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (presumption that trial court considered relevant factors where record is silent)
- People v. Myers, 69 Cal.App.4th 305 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (same presumption; court presumed to have considered all relevant factors absent contrary record)