In People v. Dain, a 6-1 Supreme Court yesterday held a superior court that made a legal error in deciding to not sentence a defendant under the Three Strikes law should be given another shot at ruling instead of being directed to impose a Three Strikes sentence.
The court’s opinion by Justice Leondra Kruger states, “When a trial court has abused its discretion in granting a Romero motion [to dismiss allegations or findings that a defendant has previously been convicted of a serious and/or violent felony that would otherwise count as a “strike” under the “Three Strikes” law], the ordinary remedy is to remand for resentencing, at which time the trial court may again exercise its sentencing discretion, this time based on a proper understanding of the governing law.”
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero dissented. Her disagreement with the majority is fact-specific. She agreed a ruling based on incorrect law ordinarily earns the sentencing court a re-do, but said further proceedings weren’t warranted in this particular case.
The court’s opinion says, “Where the record is limited as the record is in this case, it is speculative to predict that no possible further elaboration of arguments, evidence, or reasons could possibly matter to the trial court’s sentencing judgment.” But the Chief Justice writes that “the record . . . was fully developed” and that “there was nothing in the record before the trial court or the Court of Appeal in this case about ‘the nature and circumstances of [defendant’s] present felony’ or ‘the particulars of his background, character, and prospects’ that would permit any reasonable court to conclude defendant was ‘outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law.’ ”
The court reversed the published opinion of the First District, Division Two, Court of Appeal. It also disapproved the Third District’s decision in People v. Strong (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 328 and the Second District, Division Four, decision in People v. Gaston (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 310 “to the extent either case might be read to suggest that a defendant’s extensive criminal history alone always supplies sufficient reason for an appellate court to order the reinstatement of a strike.” The Supreme Court denied review in Strong over the recorded dissent of Justice Joyce Kennard. It also denied review in Gaston.
