People v. Powell CA3
C092459
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 23, 2021Background
- In 2017 Powell committed five separate residential burglaries over a ~30‑day period; physical evidence (fingerprints, property recovered from his backpack, and a victim ID) linked him to multiple scenes.
- He had prior residential burglary convictions in 2006 and 2008 and served prison time; the 2017 burglaries occurred within months after release from parole.
- Prosecutor charged five counts of first‑degree residential burglary and alleged prior serious‑felony convictions, prior prison term, and an allegation that a non‑accomplice was present during one burglary.
- A jury convicted Powell on all five counts and found the priors true.
- The trial court denied Powell’s Romero motion to strike a 2006 strike prior and sentenced him under Three Strikes to an aggregate term of 175 years to life (five consecutive 25‑to‑life terms plus prior serious felony enhancements); a one‑year §667.5(b) enhancement was imposed but stayed.
- On appeal the court affirmed the denial of the Romero motion and the sentence as constitutional, but struck the stayed §667.5(b) enhancement under post‑2019 law (SB 136) and ordered the abstract amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Powell’s Romero motion to strike a 2006 strike prior | People: Trial court properly exercised discretion given Powell’s repeated residential burglaries and recidivism | Powell: Denial was an abuse; striking the prior would avoid a "draconian" disproportionate sentence | Denial affirmed — record shows repeated, escalating criminality and no extraordinary circumstances to place Powell outside Three Strikes’ spirit |
| Whether Powell’s aggregate sentence (175 years to life) violates federal/state cruel and unusual punishment protections | People: Sentence is lawful for a recidivist under controlling precedent | Powell: Sentence is grossly disproportionate and cruel and unusual | Rejected — long life sentences for recidivists for serious (even nonviolent) felonies do not necessarily violate Eighth Amendment or California Constitution; not an extraordinary case |
| Whether the stayed one‑year §667.5(b) prior prison term enhancement is authorized after SB 136 | People: Agree it must be stricken under SB 136 | Powell: Enhancement invalid under amended law | Stricken — SB 136 narrowed §667.5(b) so the enhancement here is unauthorized; abstract to be amended |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (authorizes trial court discretion to dismiss strike priors in the interest of justice)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (factors to determine whether defendant falls outside spirit of Three Strikes)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (review standard for Romero denial — deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1980) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principle; life sentence for recidivist upheld)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003) (upheld long sentence under Three Strikes for nonviolent theft by recidivist)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2003) (gross disproportionality principle rarely establishes constitutional violation)
- People v. Bernal, 42 Cal.App.5th 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (recent summary of proportionality precedent upholding long recidivist sentences)
- People v. Petri, 45 Cal.App.5th 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (interpreting SB 136’s amendment to §667.5(b))
- People v. Smith, 24 Cal.4th 849 (Cal. 2001) (unauthorized enhancements may be modified at any time)