72 Cal.App.5th 374
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In August 2017 Vasquez committed two armed robberies (Aug. 4 and Aug. 6); in the Aug. 6 incident he struck the attendant with a handgun (facial fractures) and shot the attendant in the leg. He was later arrested in Mexico.
- Vasquez had two prior strike convictions from separate armed robberies in 2001 and had served ~13 years in prison; he was on parole when the 2017 offenses occurred.
- The amended complaint charged attempted murder, two robberies, related firearm and great-bodily-injury enhancements, and alleged two strike priors and a serious-felony prior.
- On July 30, 2020 Vasquez pleaded guilty and admitted enhancements; the trial court struck one prior strike and imposed a determinate 28-year term (upper term doubled for attempted murder plus a 10-year firearm enhancement).
- The People appealed under Penal Code § 1238(a)(10), arguing the court abused its discretion in dismissing a strike because Vasquez falls within the Three Strikes law and there are no extraordinary circumstances to justify relief; the appellate court reversed and remanded (defendant may withdraw pleas).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Vasquez’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking one prior strike under Romero/Williams | Striking was unauthorized: Vasquez’s record and the violent facts place him squarely inside Three Strikes; no extraordinary circumstances exist to take him out of the scheme | Court properly exercised its Romero discretion considering age, remoteness, priors arising from same case, and that a 28-year determinate term is fair | Reversed: court abused discretion; no extraordinary circumstances shown; dismissal fell outside bounds of reason; remand for further proceedings (including plea withdrawal) |
| Whether the fact the two priors arose in the same prior case mitigates | Priors are distinct robberies with separate victims; arising in same charging case does not make them non‑strikes | Priors arose from the same case so should be treated as mitigating | Immaterial: priors were separate offenses on different dates/victims; not mitigating |
| Whether remoteness (16 years) and age justify striking a strike | Remoteness and age are not mitigating here because Vasquez spent 13 of 16 years in prison, was on parole when he reoffended, and produced no evidence of rehabilitation | Age and time since priors reduce recidivism risk and support leniency (would serve most of life even under determinate term) | Immaterial: prior convictions not remote absent evidence of sustained rehabilitation; age alone does not remove defendant from Three Strikes’ spirit |
| Whether the trial court may substitute a "fair/just" determinate 28-year sentence for the indeterminate Three Strikes sentence | Courts must follow the Three Strikes sentencing structure; discretion is limited—only extraordinary circumstances justify treating defendant as outside the scheme | A 28-year determinate sentence is reasonable and sufficient punishment; court reasonably balanced factors | Immaterial: sentencing discretion is constrained by statute; court cannot substitute its policy judgment for the mandatory scheme absent extraordinary circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (trial court may dismiss a prior strike under Penal Code § 1385 in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (trial court must consider nature of present felonies, priors, and background; dismissal only in extraordinary circumstances)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Three Strikes restricts sentencing discretion; courts may not substitute their policy judgment for statutory scheme)
- People v. Mayfield, 50 Cal.App.5th 1096 (reversal where record showed defendant squarely within Three Strikes and dismissal was unsupported)
- People v. Garcia, 20 Cal.4th 490 (dismissal may be appropriate where priors arose from a single aberrant episode and mitigating facts exist)
- People v. Strong, 87 Cal.App.4th 328 (middle age alone does not place defendant outside the spirit of Three Strikes)
- People v. Humphrey, 58 Cal.App.4th 809 (prior convictions are not "remote" for mitigation absent evidence of a sustained, crime‑free rehabilitation period)