50 Cal.App.5th 1096
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In Sept. 2018 Mayfield, a white man with a long criminal history, threatened an eight‑month pregnant African‑American woman at a Fullerton bus station, using racial epithets and saying he would “make sure you drop your baby”; the victim fled and called police.
- Charges included a hate crime (Pen. Code § 422.7), criminal threats (§ 422), petty theft, and a hate‑crime enhancement (§ 422.75); the information alleged two prior strike convictions, two prior serious felony convictions, and two prior prison‑term enhancements based primarily on 2005 (assault with a deadly weapon) and 2008 (mayhem) convictions.
- As a third‑strike defendant he faced 25 years‑to‑life plus additional enhancements; the trial judge offered to strike one prior strike under Penal Code § 1385 and sentence him to five years if he pleaded guilty.
- The district attorney opposed the strike, filed a sentencing brief detailing Mayfield’s extensive violent and racially motivated history (including a 2017 hate‑crime reduced to a misdemeanor), but the judge struck the 2005 strike—citing no injury, no weapon, remoteness, and an early plea—and imposed a five‑year term.
- On appeal the People argued the § 1385 dismissal was an abuse of discretion; the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the trial court unreasonably applied § 1385 given the violent, racially motivated pattern and lack of mitigating evidence, and remanded to allow Mayfield to withdraw his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking a prior strike under Penal Code § 1385 | The court abused discretion: Mayfield’s crime and long history of violent, racially motivated offenses demonstrate he falls within the Three Strikes scheme and do not justify leniency | Striking was justified because the current offense caused no physical injury, no weapon was used, the 2005 strike was remote, and Mayfield pleaded early | Reversed: abuse of discretion. The court’s stated reasons were unreasonable given the violent/racial pattern and lack of mitigating character/prospect evidence; plea relief ordered (withdrawal) |
| Whether the appellate court may rely on facts from the People’s sentencing brief and the victim’s statement | The facts in the People’s sentencing brief and the victim’s on‑the‑record statement are properly considered; defendant forfeited objections by failing to provide contrary materials or request a presentence report | The sentencing‑brief facts are unreliable and one‑sided because sources are not identified | The Court may consider the victim’s on‑record statement and the People’s sentencing brief; defendant forfeited the right to challenge that material by failing to present contrary evidence or request a report |
| Whether the 2005 strike was too remote to justify striking | The 2005 strike is not remote in light of Mayfield’s continued violent and racially motivated criminality, probation/parole violations, and the 2017 hate‑crime episode | The 14‑year age of the strike supports leniency | Held for the People: remoteness is not mitigating here because Mayfield continued a persistent pattern of violent crime after 2005 |
| Appropriate remedy after an improper § 1385 offer induced a plea | The proper remedy is reversal and an order allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea and proceed without the benefit of the struck strike | Defendant sought remand to present additional mitigation to justify the original strike dismissal | Court reversed and remanded to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea (not simply remand for additional sentencing evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vargas, 59 Cal.4th 635 (2014) (Three Strikes law’s purpose and strict operation)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (trial court power to dismiss priors under § 1385 in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (2004) (standards for reviewing § 1385 exercises of discretion)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (1998) (remoteness of priors must be considered with defendant’s post‑prior conduct; abuse of discretion standard)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (bias/motivation as sentencing factor; hate crime aggravation)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (1994) (forfeiture rule for appellate review of sentencing procedure)
- People v. Stone, 75 Cal.App.4th 707 (1999) (Three Strikes intended for repeat career criminals)