People v. Olay
98 Cal.App.5th 60
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Deryll Teaorio Olay appealed the denial of his motion to strike a prior conviction under California Penal Code section 1385 following convictions for grand theft (catalytic converter theft) and vandalism.
- Olay’s information included a prior strike for attempted robbery in 2018; he admitted to this strike and a probation violation from a 2019 vehicle theft/extortion case.
- At sentencing, Olay sought dismissal of the prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) and Senate Bill 81, and requested probation and drug court based on drug addiction.
- The trial court found section 1385 did not apply to prior strikes (Three Strikes is a sentencing scheme, not an enhancement), denied the motion, denied probation, and imposed a doubled sentence under the Three Strikes law.
- On appeal, Olay argued both that the law should allow strikes to be stricken as enhancements and that recent statutes required an alternative-to-incarceration analysis.
- The First Appellate District affirmed the trial court, holding that “enhancement” in section 1385 does not cover prior strikes, and remand was unnecessary given the court’s reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the court have stricken the prior strike | Court properly refused; Three Strikes is not an enhancement | Court had discretion under section 1385 and Romero | Court properly denied motion; no abuse of discretion |
| Does “enhancement” under § 1385 include strikes | No; term covers statutory enhancements only | Yes; language is ambiguous with reference to juvenile adjudications | “Enhancement” does not include prior strikes |
| Should court consider alternatives to incarceration under § 17.2 | Record already reflects consideration | Remand required for new § 17.2 analysis | Remand not required; record shows court would not have changed sentence |
| Does recent drug addiction mitigate denial of Romero motion | No exceptional circumstances to support strike | Yes; addiction and non-violence are mitigating | Drug addiction not extraordinary; court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial courts may strike prior convictions under Three Strikes in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (factors for determining whether defendant falls outside scope of Three Strikes law)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (presumption that sentences under Three Strikes law are proper; abuse of discretion standard)
- People v. Burke, 89 Cal.App.5th 237 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (term "enhancement" in section 1385 does not apply to Three Strikes law)