WPCT a\^.6j(TBH46/^?~oZ@0Wvg-I讦$E" +S2 9E~D1h<7<-mbvnh(+\wJ{_yw +1ƦU ;7x˙vmVkJ?"<=@@<\{@ 0 0 0; 0a 0P 0 09 0 02 0 0: 05 0_ 0  0k# 0 B*U D3 C D+ 0 0 06 0 0: 0h 0FU6U> U*? &i 0&! 0D##%'' 0N'b ((N)H) 0U, 0=- 0 .M.$.( 0 050 00 01 0`2 0 3 03 0U4 05 05 06 0K7 07 08 0.9 09 0P: 0; 0; 0< 0:= 0= 0|> B? 01? 0? D/M@ D/|@ 1e@tA*C 1uC 72#DUD=;FU@xGG*LITvI0KLoNUNQUNQQQQQQRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR5RSHP LaserJet 4,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX([$TRX3' LetterX3' Letter3' Letter3' LetterT  hxhxhxԅ4A{BECDEGVHDIUKiu3@0yFiles3|xKU)^S Z 6Times New Roman Regular0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK,<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS-\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K,<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS-\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K,<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS-\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I"#4$ ** ddI  B    ?.%2A`Arial?9$#*  dd9  XXXS-\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d!!!!'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI"#4$** ddI  B    ?.%2A`Arial?9$#*  dd9  XXXS-\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK,<6X9`(Courier NewKS-\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK,<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS-\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  0)$X4=XXXXX4=      1    _ Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)(1996)13Cal.3d497.# #((2)$ [!TRX3' LetterX3' Letter3' Letter3'T  X4=XXXXX4=        0  (#$  0    0)$X4=XXXXX4=      2    _Ԛ Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148;# #Ԛ Peoplev.Carmony(2004)33Cal.4th  367.# #  0)$X4=XXXXX4=      3    _Mostoftheresultsdescribedbelowarefromunpublishedcases.Assuch,theyare  helpfulforthinkingthroughissues,butprovidenoauthorityforcitationpurposes,andnosureguideastowhetherasubsequentappellatepanelwillfollowthesamecourseasthefavorableorunfavorableresultinthepriorcase.      (O$- - ~ 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      4    _Iadmit,thisismypetissue;andIalsoconcedeithasnevergoneanywhere.But  dangit,ImrightaboutthisoneandthinkIshouldwin,soImputtingitfirsteventhoughitmaynotdeserveit. > 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      10    _ Indeed,asthedistrictcourtjudgeinDuranpointsout, Thepossessionofasmall  amountofheroincarriesnomorethreatofviolencethandoesaddictiontoheroin,forwhichimprisonmentisproscribedbytheEighthAmendment.SeeRobinsonv.California[(1962)  370U.S.660,667].Indeed,asamatterofcommonexperience,anaddictwhoisnotinpossessionofnarcoticslikelyposesagreaterrisktothecommunitythanonewhopossessesthemeanstosatisfyhisorhercraving.(Duranv.Castro,supra,227F.Supp.2datp.1128.# #*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,    0)$X4=XXXXX4=      6    _ Peoplev.Estes(1983)147Cal.App.3d23# #.*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h  d()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   !)1dxd!)2dxdGHIJKLMN 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. j 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      11    _ԀSamplebriefingisavailablefromthiswriter.4^ 6O  5  bill@sdap.org66O0  7 ԀTheissueispending  intheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinPeoplev.McGee, 115Cal.App.4th819,rev.gtd.April  28,2004.# #mailto:bill@sdap.org3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)_i)  0)$X4=XXXXX4=      12    _See UnitedStatesv.Tighe(9thCir.2001)# # Ԁ266F.3d1187;cf.# #Peoplev.Lee(2003)  111Cal.App.4th1310;butseepp.13191323,diss.opin.orRushing,J. 3 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      13    _ԀThisissueiscurrentlypendingintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinMichael  Kresserscase,Peoplev.Trujillo,S130080.'5 Z(Garamond Regular  0)$X4=XXXXX4=      5    _Samplebriefingonthisissueisavailableonrequestto4e 6O  5  bill@sdap.org66O0  7 .mailto:bill@sdap.org J 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      8    _Isanyonesensingapatternhere?Robinsonlosesacreativeargument,thenusesthis  articleasawayofventinghisfrustration?Butisntthatwhatpreachingtothechoirisall   about?Besides,likeanyzealousadvocate,Ireallydobelievemynovelargumentshavemerit,andthatitsjustamatteroftimeandluckbeforesomeone,somewhere,succeedswiththesearguments. & 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      9    _ Peoplev.Carmony(2005)127Cal.App.4th1066,rev.den.62905# #.  0U|$jX4=XXXjXX4=    1    _kPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)(1996)13Cal.3d497.#j # e 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      7    _TakenotethatboththeaboveSixthDistrictcasesraisedtheclaimbymeansofan  allegationofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Ineachcase,counselfailedtoobjecttotheuseofafactorunsupportedbytherecord.Sincetheissueconcernedthesentencingcourtsexerciseofdiscretion,anobjectionwasrequiredunder Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331# #  topreservetheissueforappellatereview.Sincecounselfailedtomakeameritoriousobjectionatsentencingwhichhadastronglikelihoodofresultinginamorefavorablesentence,theissuecouldberaisedasIACatsentencing.(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular)^S Z 6Times New Roman Regular    GillispieEstesThimmesEasleyLockettEddingsPenryLynaughDuggerbein[gRitalinWitteSubpointVenceremosignor[esMagnanLetteer OSCsFarbmanQuintero 0)$X4=XXXXX4=      14    _ԀPeoplev.Arbuckle(1978)22Cal.3d749. [!TRX3' LetterX3' Letter3' Letter3'T  X4=XXXXX4=  _X 784=Xdd8ccCc4h5eq[GUERRILLAWARAGAINSTTHETHREESTRIKES  LAW#ccCP##c1#  P  @Introduction:WhatsLeftAfterEwing,CarmonyIandtheDefeatofProp.66?  P LD  D  IbeginwiththeassumptionthatIam preachingtothechoirwithmybasictwopartpremise.First,thatCaliforniasThreeStrikesLawisafundamentallyunjustlaw,particularlywhen25tolifesentencesareimposedonpersonswithtwopriorstrikesandacurrentnonseriousfelony,andespeciallywhenthecurrentoffenseisaminorcrimesuchassimplepossessionofdrugs,pettytheftwithaprior,orsection290registrationviolations.Andsecond,thatasbothconscientiouszealousadvocatesforourclientsandascrusadersforjusticeitself,weshoulddo(andhavedone)everythingwithinourpower,ability,andimaginationtofighttheunjustconsequencesofthislawwithrespecttoourclients.  Thebattlesandskirmishesoverthislawduringthefirsttwelveyearsofitsshamefulexistencehavetakenupaconsiderableamountofourtimeandefforts,aswellasthoseofthecourtsandouradversaries.Wecan,ofcourse,begratefulforonesmallvictoryearlyoninRomero,E/EEhE 1#  1      ׀whichatleastgavesentencingjudgestheauthoritytoalleviatetheinjusticeof d thelawonacasebycasebasis.Ofcourse,thisleftourclientsatthemercyoftheworstprosecutors(e.g.,SantaClaraCounty)andtheworstjudges(e.g.,manySantaClaraCountyjurists)todecidewhowillsufferthehorrendousinjusticeofafirstdegreemurderlikesentenceforaminorcurrentcrime,andLWOPequivalentsentencesforanykindofcurrentseriousfelonycrimeorcrimes.  Unfortunately,thehopefromRomeroprovedtobethinindeed,asshownbythe , SupremeCourtsnexttwocasesonthesubject,WilliamsandCarmonyI.2 1#  2      ׀Williamsput (!x starklimitsonatrialcourtsabilitytograntRomeroreliefunderPenalCodesection1385, t" requiringreversalofsuchfavorablerulingsincaseswherethedefendantisdeemedwithinthe spiritoftheThreeStrikeslaw(i.e.,vengeanceagainstwrongdoers).AndCarmony  %\  Imadeitvirtuallyimpossibletochallenge,asanabuseofdiscretion,atrialcourtsdecision X&! todenyRomeroreliefevenforaveryminorcurrentcrime. '"   Worseyet,twoothergreathopesforlimitingtheeffectoftheThreeStrikeslawwere (@$ 4h 4X 4  dashedinrecentyears.AftersomepromisingearlyNinthCircuitrulings,EighthAmendmentdisproportionalitychallengestotheStrikeslawwererejectedbytheU.S.SupremeCourtsnarrowmajoritydecisionsinEwingv.California(2003)538U.S.11and H Lockyerv.Andrade(2003)538U.S.63,whichupheld25and50tolifesentencesunderthe  Strikeslawforcurrentcrimesofpettytheftwithaprior.Thefollowingyear,theCaliforniaelectorate,afteralastminutemediablitzbythenpopularTerminatorturnedGovernorSchwarzenegger,narrowlydefeatedProposition66,whichwouldhavecorrectedmanyofthemostunjustpartsoftheStrikeslaw.  ItshardtodenythetriplewhammyeffectofWilliamsCarmonyI,EwingAndrade, `  andthedefeatofProp.66.Forthetimebeing,atleast,weappeartobestuckwiththefullblown,illconceivedandpatentlyunjustThreeStrikeslaw.Andwearestuck,forthemostpart,withtheoftenarbitraryfilteringprocessofprosecutorsandtrialjudgestoselectwhoamongourclientswillcatchabreakandendupwithsomethinglessthanthedraconian25tolifesentencemandatedforthirdstrikers.  However!andthiswholearticleandpresentationarepredicateduponthat however!weknowthattherearesomedifferentforcesatworkbetweenthelinesinthewaragainsttheinjusticeoftheThreeStrikeslaw.Thereareother,lessdirectwaysofattackingtheunjusteffectoftheThreeStrikeslawwhichcanbeutilizedtochallengelifesentencesagainstourclients.AndwhiletherearemanypersonsinrobessittingonthetrialandappellatecourtbenchwhoaremorethanhappytoimposeandupholdlifesentencesundertheStrikeslaw,wealsoknowthatthereareotherswho,likeus,seetheeffectsofthislawasarbitraryandunfairlypunitive.  ThepurposeofthisseminararticleandpresentationistobeacallforcontinuedbattleagainsttheThreeStrikeslaw.Whilefullblownstrategicwaragainstthislawhasbeendefeatedfornowbythecourtsandafrightenedelectorate,itisourdutytokeepupatenacious guerrillawaragainsttheStrikeslawonbehalfofourclients.Andtheingenuityofourguerillatacticscansometimesbethedifferencebetweenanearcertainlifetimeofimprisonmentorachanceforfreedomandhopeforourclients.  TheOperativePremiseofthispieceisthatthereareatleastsomejudgesintrialandappellatecourtswho,likeus,believetheThreeStrikeslawisunjust,especiallyasappliedtodefendantswhosecurrentcrimesareminorfelonies;andthatthesejudgesarelookingforwaystoundotheunjusteffectsoftheStrikeslawwithoutdefyingprecedent.Additionally, ,4( therearesomesituationswherewecanwinreversalsofthreestrikessentencesevenwithoutsympatheticjudgesonthebenchjustbythestrengthofourarguments.  HerethenisanonexhaustivecatalogueoftacticalchallengestotheStrikeslaw.LLI. ROMERO:WHATCANYOUDOWHENITSDENIED?   d LLLLv  In_Carmony_ԀI,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt heldthatonlyinrare,extraordinary   situations,wherenoreasonablejuristcoulddisagreethatthedefendantfallsoutsidethespiritoftheThreeStrikeslaw,willatrialcourtsdecisionnottograntRomeroreliefconstitutean I  abuseofdiscretion.(_Carmony_ԀI,33Cal.4thatpp.378379.)# #ԀThepracticaleffectof   _Carmony_ԀIistovirtuallyeliminateanyargumentthatdenialofaRomeromotionisanabuse 1  ofdiscretion.So,inordertoattackaRomerodenialwithanyhopeofsuccess,other -}  strategieshavetobeemployed.Whatfollowsaresomesuggestedapproaches,andexamplesofhowtheywork.LLLLj  A. AttackingtheMannerinWhichDiscretionIsExercised . ] LLLL  ThekeytoasuccessfulattackonaRomerodenialistofocusnotonthesubstanceof J thetrialcourtsexerciseofdiscretion!i.e.,thatthisjudgewouldntgrantRomerowhere F mostreasonablejuristswouldhavedoneso(anargumentseeminglyforeclosedby_Carmony_  I)!butontheformoftheexerciseofdiscretion.Typically,thismeansattackingthetrial . courtsfailureorrefusaltoconsiderproperfactorsorconsiderationofimproperfactorsorrelianceuponfactuallyorlegallyincorrectgrounds.  Oneneedstobecreativeinidentifyingsuchsituationsandinraisingargumentswhichappeartobesomethingmorethanathinlydisguisedclaimthatthetrialcourtsoutrageouslyunfairdecisionwasanabuseofdiscretion.Hereareafewsuggestedapproaches,mostbasedonactualcases,someofwhichweresuccessful,butmanyofwhichwerenot.3 1#  3      ׀G  " 5e 5 5  GHH   Category1:TrialCourtWhichStatesItsDenyingRomeroBecauseitWould  BeanAbuseofDiscretion,oranUnauthorizedSentence,IfItGrantedRelief .8 1#  4      ׀ L LLLL'&  ItsobviousthatmanyjudgesfeelbadwhentheydenyaRomeromotion,oratleast  haveaguiltyconscience.Sometimesajudgewillmakeanapologeticcommentinthecourseofdenyingamotiontostrikepriors.Thecommentmaysoundsomethinglike,  Gee,Icant 1  grantyourRomeromotionbecauseitwouldbeanabuseofdiscretionformetodismissthe }  strikepriors...;orthatRomeroreliefwasprecludedbecausetherewas nowiggleroom   inthecase;orthatifRomeroreliefwastobegranteditwouldsurelybereversedbyan e  appellatecourt.  AnarguablymeritoriousattackonsucharulingcanbefashionedbasedonthecontentionthatthecaseinquestionisnotoneinwhichanygrantofRomeroreliefwouldbe I  anabuseofdiscretion,alaWilliams,butratheracase onthebubble,inwhichaproper E  exerciseofdiscretioncouldleadtoeitheragrantoradenialofRomerorelief.Insucha   claim,onearguesthattheknownfactsaboutthecurrentcrime,thestrikepriororpriors,andthedefendantsbackground,characterandprospects,aresuchthatadifferentreasonabletrialjudgecouldhavegrantedRomerorelief,andoneinwhichsuchagrantofreliefwould u havebeenupheldonreviewasaproperexerciseofsection1385discretion.  Assuch,theargumentgoes,thetrialcourtwhichbaseditsdecisiononaconclusionthatitwouldbeareversibleabuseofdiscretiontograntRomeroreliefcouldnothave Y properlyexerciseditsdiscretion.Whenatrialjudgestartsoffbyconcludingthathisorherjudicialhandsaretied,itisakintothesituationwhereacourterroneouslyconcludesthataparticularsentenceismandatorywhenitis,infact,discretionary.Inbothcases,thedecisionisanabuseofdiscretionunderthesettledrulethat [a]courtwhichisunawareofthescopeofitsdiscretionarypowerscannomoreexercisethatinformeddiscretionthanonewhosesentenceisormayhavebeenbasedonmisinformationregardingamaterialaspectofadefendantsrecord.(Peoplev.Belmontes(1983)34Cal.3d335,348,fn.8.)# t'# Ԁ m%    Variationsonthissortofargumenthavealsocomeup.Inonecase,thetrialjudgedeniedRomeroreliefwiththisabsurdcomment: Basedonthetestimony,theevidence (U# presented,theCourtfindsthatthedefendanthasnotsustainedhisburdenofproofinordertorequiretheCourttoexerciseitsdiscretioninstrikingthestrikeinthismatter.Here,itwasarguedthattheCourtmisunderstoodthescopeofitsdiscretionwhenittookthemisguidedviewthatthenarrowgroundsforRomeroreliefdescribedinWilliamssomehow  putaburdenofproofonthedefensetoshowentitlementtodismissalofastrikeundersection1385.# 0#  , |   Unfortunately,thisargumenthasnotmetwithanynotablesuccess!yet.Whattheappellatecourtshavedone,inunpublishedopinions,istoignoretheactualpostureoftheclaimandtreatitasifitwasastraightoutchallengetothecourtsexerciseofdiscretion.Inoneearlycase,IrecallJusticeCottle,duringoralargument,effectivelyagreeingwithmethatthiswasacasethatwas onthebubble,whichcouldhavegoneeitherwayintermsof   Romeroreliefbeinggrantedordenied,butthenaskingmewhyIthoughtdenialwasan D  abuseofdiscretion.Ineffect,theunpublishedopinionsinthesecasesconcludedthatthetrialjudgesmayhavesaidtheyweredenyingreliefbecauseitwouldbeanabuseof   discretion,butwhattheyreallymeantwasthatintheirjudgmentdiscretionshouldnotbe ( exercisedonbehalfofthisdefendant,adecisionwhichwasanacceptableexerciseofdiscretionundertherecordintheparticularcase.InnotoneofthesecasesdidtheCourtofAppealconcludethatitwouldhave,infact,beenanabuseofdiscretion,alaWilliams,to   grantRomerorelief. X   Sinceweareonlylosingthisissuebecauseofsleightofhandtrickerybytheappellatecourts,Iwouldsuggestthatthisavenueofargumentbepursuedwhenitcomesup.# /3#Venceremos! d 1#  5      # M9# < LL9   Category2:TrialCourtConsidersImproperFactorsinExerciseofDiscretion ! orFailstoConsiderProperFactors . #T LLLL:  ThisnextgroupsofchallengesarisesoutoflanguageinRomeroandWilliams,which $ discusswhatcanandcannotbeconsideredinexerciseof1385discretioninThreeStrikeslawcases.(Williams,supra,17Cal.4thatp.160161.)Included,asanegativeexampleof 9'" whatcannotbeconsideredis apersonalantipathyfortheeffectthatthethreestrikeslawwouldhaveon[a]defendant...which ignor[es]...defendantsbackground,thenature )!% ofhispresentoffenses,andotherindividualizedconsiderations.(Id.,atp.159,quoting  Romero,supra,13Cal.4thatpp.530-531,internalquotationsomitted.)Aconverseholding L issuggestedinCarmonyI,i.e.,thatdenialofRomeroreliefisanabuseofdiscretion Ԁ where H thetrialcourtconsideredimpermissiblefactorsindecliningtodismiss.(Peoplev.Carmony  (2004)33Cal.4th367,378,citingPeoplev.Gillispie(1997)60Cal.App.4th429,434.)# y>#ԀAs  0 Gillispieexplains, thereis novaliddistinctionbetweenafailuretoexercisediscretionand , | afailuretoexercisediscretioninalawfulmanner.# ?#ԀGillispieprovidesanexample,albeit x  hypothetical,e.g.,that therecordmayshowthatthecourtwasmotivatedbyconsiderationsthatviolatetheguaranteeofequalprotectionunderthelaw,suchasbiasrelatedtothedefendant'sraceornationalorigin....(Ibid.) \  LLB   SubCategorya:ConsiderationofImproperFactors.  (x  LLLLB  ThebestexampleofthisisPeoplev.Cluff(2001)87Cal.App.4th991,whichis   sometimesincorrectlydescribedastheonlycasetofindanabuseofdiscretioninfailuretograntRomerorelief,butisreallyacasewheretherewasalackofsubstantialevidenceto ] supportthestatedreasonfordenyingRomero.ClufffoundarefusaltograntRomerorelief  tobeanabuseofdiscretionbecausethetrialcourtdeniedtherequestbasedonafactorwhichhadnosupportintherecord,i.e.,thecourtsconclusionthatCluffhaddeliberatelysoughttoevadethesexregistrationrequirements,whentherecordactuallyshowedameretechnicalorinadvertentviolationofthelaw.  AtrioofSixthDistrictcasesfurtherillustratethissubcategoryofabuseofdiscretion.IntheOBriencase,AlexGreen,withhelpfromSDAPAssistantDirectorDallasSacher, q wonanunpublishedreversalbasedonJudgeLiskserroneousconclusionthatoneofthedefendantspriorcrimeswasa secretstrike.Inreviewingthedefendantscriminalhistory,JudgeLisknotedthattherewasapettytheftfromSantaBarbaraCountywhich,heconcluded,wouldhavebeenchargedasanEstesrobbery? 1#  6      ׀inSantaClaraCounty;JudgeLisk $ thenincludedtheexistenceofthis secretstrikeasaoneofhisstatedreasonsfordenying %=! Romerorelief.InanunpublisheddecisionreversingtheRomerodenial,theSixthDistrict 9'" foundthisconclusionerroneousasamatteroflawbecausethefactsshowedthatitwasntanEstesrobbery,inthatthedefendantditchedthepropertybeforeforcewasusedtomake )!% q[ q q  hisgetaway.ThusthetrialcourtsrelianceonafactthatwascontrarytotheactualrecordinthiscaseledtoanunpublishedfullreversalofthedefendantsThreeStrikesentenceandremandfornewRomerohearing. H   AsimilarissueisnowpendingintheThimmescase,handledbypanelattorneyGloria  Cohen,againassistedbyDallas.InThimmes,thetrialjudgebasedhisorderdenying  0 Romeroreliefinasecondstrikecaseinpartonhisconclusionthatthedefendantwason , | noticewhenhecommittedhisstrike,acriminalthreatunderPenalCodesection422,thatanyadditionalfelonywouldleadtoadoubledsentenceandcreditlimits.Infactacriminalthreatundersection422wasntastrikeuntilProposition21wasenactedin2000,whereasthedefendantscriminalthreatcrimewascommittedin1999.ThusthedefendantwasnotonnoticeafterhisconvictionthathewassubjecttotheStrikeslaw,andthisbasisforthetrialcourtsrefusaltoexercisesection1385discretionisnotsupportedbysubstantialevidence.i 1#  7       @    AthirdunpublishedwinintheSixthDistrictintheRubialescasedidnotrequirean   IACfinding.Inthatcase,SDAPStaffAttorneyJonathanGrossmanpersuadedtheCourtthatthetrialcourtsconclusionthatthedefendantwasmalingeringhismentalillnesshadnosupportintherecord.TheCourtofAppealreversedbecausetherecordactuallyestablished,withoutdispute,thatRubialeswasnotmalingeringbuthadseverementalillnessproblemswhichinvolvedfactorsfavorabletoagrantofRomerorelief. X LLQ  Subcategoryb:CourtsRefusalorFailuretoConsiderFavorableEvidence.  $ LLLLpR  Theconverseofacourtsrelianceuponimproperfactors,oronesnotsupportedbyevidence,isanaffirmativerefusaltoconsiderfactsorinformationwhichisfavorabletoagrantofRomerorelief.Ofcourse,thetwoconceptsareoftenrelated.Intheaforementioned "T Rubialescase,forexample,thetrialcourtsunsupported malingererfindingcausedthe P# courttorefusetoconsidersalientinformationaboutthedefendantsmentalproblemswhich $ explainedhiscriminalconductandmadehimarguablyoutsidethespirtoftheThreeStrikesLaw.LLLL"U  Cruz .MyownCruzcaseprovidesanotherexampleofacourtsrefusaltoconsider  favorableevidence.TrialcounselputtogetheranincrediblymovingportraitofMr.Cruzstragicchildhoodofabuse,neglectandearlyexposureandaddictiontodrugsandalcohol.AttheRomerohearing,JudgeAhern commentedthatthehorrificfactsconcerningthe {  defendantsupbringing couldbringtearstosomeoneseyes...;however,thejudgeadded,hehadto putasidethesefactsanddecidetheRomerorequestbasedonCruzscriminal c  history,thendeniedtherequest,sentencingCruztoa25tolifetermforacurrentcrimeofsimplepossessionofdrugsoutsidehisownhouse.Thecourtcommentedthatitcouldnotbeguidedby sympathyforthedefendant,buthadtodecidethemotionon otherreasons.  Iarguedintheappealthatthetrialcourtsrulingsamountedtoarefusaltoconsiderpertinentfactsaboutappellantsbackgroundandcharacter,whicharearequiredpartofthe + RomerocalculusunderWilliams.Ifederalizedthisargumentundercaselawrecognizinga 'w FourteenthAmendmentDueProcessrighttohavetheentitydecidingsentenceconsidersympatheticfactsaboutthedefendant.While sympathyisafactorwhichthefactfinderatatrialshouldnotconsider,aseriesofU.S.SupremeCourtcapitalcasesmakeitclearthat# ߵV#defendantisconstitutionallyentitledtohavethesentencingbodyconsiderany sympathy W factorraisedbytheevidencebeforeit.(Peoplev.Easley(1983)34Cal.3d858,876,  quotingPeoplev.Robertson(1982)33Cal.3d21,57-58;seeLockettv.Ohio(1978)438 ? U.S.586,604(pluralityopinion).)  ThebestexampleofthisprincipleisEddingsv.Oklahoma(1982)455U.S.104, ! wherethetrialjudgeinacapitalcaseannouncedthathewasprecluded,asamatteroflaw,fromconsideringthedefendants violentbackground,i.e., mitigatingevidenceofEddingssfamilyhistory...exemplifiedbythefactthathewasslappedaroundandbeatenbyhisfather.(Id.,atp.113&fn.8.) &" L8  JustastheStatemaynotbystatuteprecludethesentencerfromconsideringanymitigatingfactor,neithermaythesentencerrefusetoconsider,asamatteroflaw,anyrelevantmitigatingevidence.Inthisinstance,itwasasifthetrialjudgehadinstructedajurytodisregardthemitigatingevidenceEddingsprofferedonhisbehalf.    L_LLLL`(Id.,atpp.113114.) O-("   Theprincipleadvancedintheforegoingcasesstemsnotsimplyfromtheuniqueandultimatepenaltyinvolvedincapitalcases,butfromthedistinctionbetweenthefunctionofacourtasarbiterofguilt,ontheonehand,andsentencer,ontheother.LLbL8  Asentencingjudge...isnotconfinedtothenarrowissueofguilt.Histaskwithinfixedstatutoryorconstitutionallimitsistodeterminethetypeandextentofpunishmentaftertheissueofguilthasbeendetermined.Highlyrelevant!ifnotessential!tohisselectionofanappropriatesentenceisthepossessionofthefullestinformationpossibleconcerningthedefendantslifeandcharacteristics.    LGbLL6d(Williamsv.NewYork(1949)337U.S.241,247;U.S.Const.,14thAmend.)Thedue   processholdinginWilliamswasakeypredicatetothepluralityopinioninLockett,requiring 0  individualizedconsiderationofanyaspectofadefendantscharacterandrecordprofferedasmitigatingfactors.(Lockett,supra,438U.S.atp.604.) x   UnfortunatelyforMr.Cruz,thismeritoriousargumentfellondeafears,withtheCourtofAppealconcludinginanunpublishedopinionthatJudgeAhernhadactuallyconsideredthefactsaboutCruzsbackground,andthathiscommentssimplyindicatedthat \ hewasavoidingbeing swayedbysympathyinhisRomerodecision.Thisconclusion  madelittlesensebecausetherecordshowedthatthetrialjudgespecificallystatedthathewold putasidethesadbutsympatheticfactsaboutdefendantssocialhistoryanddecidetheRomeromotionbasedon otherreasonsandthedefendants criminalhistory.The  DueProcessargumentwillbepresentedinafederalhabeaspetition,toberaisedinadditiontotheEighthAmendmentclaiminthatcase.LLpi  Subcategory(c):ACreativeGarciaSpin .  @ LLLLi  In Peoplev.Garcia(1999)20Cal.4th490# *j# ,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthat " atrialcourtsauthorityundersection1385andRomeroincludesthepowertovacatesome #) orallofadefendantsstrikes onacountbycountbasis,holdingthatsection1385expresslypermitsacourttostrikepriorsastooneormore,butnotall,ofthedefendantscurrentchargedcrimes.(Id.,atpp.496502.)InEngland,anotherofmyownThreeStrikes ' # cases,thedefendantwaslookingata50tolifesentenceforafirstcriminalepisodeofsimplepossessionofmeth,andasecondincidentwhereherecklesslyevadedthepoliceinahighspeedcarchase,thenledthemonafootchasewhichproximatelycausedseriousinjurytoapoliceofficer.SensingthatitwasfutiletoargueRomeroabuseofdiscretionastothe ,=(# secondsetofcrimes,IfocusedmyargumentonthedenialofGarciareliefastothesimple  possessioncharge.AnargumentfocusedonthisaspectoftherulingmadesensebecauseJudgeLeesstatedreasonsfordenyingRomeroreliefreliedentirelyonthemoreserious H criminalconductofthesecondincident,andsaidnothingaboutMr.Englandsdruguseinthefirstincident.  Theargumentwentsomethinglikethis:GarciapointsoutthatunderWilliams,the , | sentencingjudgedecidingaRomerorequestmustpayattentionto individualized x  considerations...suchasthenatureandcircumstancesofthedefendantspresentfelonies....Inmanycases,Garcianoted,thisfactorcan differconsiderablyastovariouscharged `  counts,and [a]courtmightthereforebejustifiedinstrikingpriorconvictionallegationswithrespecttoarelativelyminorcurrentfelony,whileconsideringthosepriorconvictionswithrespecttoaseriousorviolentcurrentfelony.(Garcia,supra,atp.499,quoting D  Williams,supra,atpp.159,161.)# j# ԀInMr.Englandscase,Ipointedoutinconsiderabledetail @  thatvirtuallyeveryRomerofactorconcerningthesimplepossessionchargewashighly   favorabletotheexerciseofdiscretiononEnglandsbehalf.TheaspectofthetrialcourtssentencingdecisionwhichrefusedtograntpartialRomeroreliefunderGarciaastothe $t simplepossessioncharge,Iargued,wasunreasonedandarbitrarysinceJudgeLeeslengthycommentsexplaininghisreasonsfordenyingRomeroreliefmentionnotonewordaboutthis   earlier,minoroffense,focusingexclusivelyonthesecondincident.  PerhapsmoreimportantlyunderGarcia,thecourtscommentaboutthe guarded T natureofappellants currentprospectsfailedtoconsider,asGarciateaches,thatthefocus  forpurposesoflimitedGarciareliefshouldhavebeenonappellantsprospectsafterserving < theminimum25yeartermwhichhewouldhavereceivedifthestrikesweredismissedonlyastothedrugpossessioncharge.(Garcia,supra,20Cal.4thatp.500.)Fromthisitcould " beconcludedthatthecourtscommentsindicateditinnomannergaveseriousconsiderationtostrikingpriorsonlyastotheearlier,minorfelony.IthenwentthroughallthepertinentfactorstowardsexerciseofpartialRomeroreliefunderGarcia,andconcludedthatthetrial h&! courtsrefusaltograntsuchreliefwasanabuseofdiscretion,requiringreversal.# Ms#  '#   Thisargumenttooprovedunsuccessfulinthedirectappeal.f 1#  8      ׀Thecourtofappeal )P$ simplypresumedthatsincethetrialjudgeknewaboutGarcia,anddeclinedtoexerciseits  discretiontograntsuchrelief,andbecausethisresultwasonethatareasonablejudgecouldmake,therewasnoabuseofdiscretion.Onceagain,thiswasanunpublisheddecision,andthustheissueinarelatedcasecouldbepresentedanewandarguedvigorously.# 3z#  LL|  B. AttackingIACinFailingtoPresentanAdequateRomeroMotion,i.e.,the `  LackofInvestigation,FailuretoPresentMentalHealthEvidenceorOtherMitigatingFactors.   M LLLL}  BynowwehaveallcountlesstimesreadtheboilerplateRomeromotionusedbythe   SantaClaraPublicDefendersOffice.Theresthestandardsummaryofthesamecasesfromthelate90's,asummaryofthedefendantssocialhistoryandbackground(whichisgenerallyprettywelldone),andthennomorethanoneortwoparagraphsaboutwhyRomeroshould y  begrantedinthiscase.Inmanycases,thelackofaneffectivelyarguedwrittenRomero   motionmakesnomeaningfuldifference:yourclientistheThreeStrikesPosterBoy,andthemostelegantlyresearchedandwrittenmotionintheworldwouldntpersuadethebestjudgeinthecountytograntRomerorelief.    Butothertimes,thecaseyourehandlingonappealisonewhichcriedoutforRomero E relief.Inthosesituations,itsincrediblyfrustratingthatcounselforthedefendantdidvirtuallynothingofsubstancetoadvocateforafavorableRomeroresult.Sometimes,this  cantranslateintoacognizablehabeasargumentaboutcounselsineffectiveness.  Takeoneofmycases,forexample.WellcalltheclientBobbyGomez(eventhoughthatisnthisname),becausethehabeasinthiscasehasyettobefiled.Bobbyisarrestedforsimplepossession,andhasthreepriorstrikes,twofromthesamebankrobberywithnoweaponused,theotherfromatypicalbreakthewindow,grabitandrunresidentialburglary.Nophysicalviolenceisusedinanyofthepriors,andnooneisinjured.Bobbysarguablymeritoriousmotiontosuppressisdenied,andBobby,ontheadviceofhispublicdefendercounsel,entersan openguiltypleatothesimplepossessioncharges,withthepromiseofaRomerohearing.ThewrittenRomeromotionfeaturestheboilerplatelegal 9'" argument,butlackstheexpectedsummaryofBobbysbackground,socialhistoryand (# prospects.ThereisatwosentencecommentaboutthefactthatBobbyhasbeendiagnosedwithbipolarmania,whichisnowinremissionthankstomedication,butnoothermentalhealthinformationorevaluations.Afteruninspiredargumentbycounsel,theconservativesentencingjudgedeniesRomeroandsentencesBobbyto25tolife!avirtualLWOPterm  forthisfortyyearolddefendant.Whatcanyoudo?Obviously,raisethesuppressionmotiononappeal,andanEighthAmendmentclaim.ButcananythingbedoneabouttheRomero , | denial?  WhatIvebeendoingisinvestigatingandputtingtogetherahabeaspetitionbasedontheRomeromotionthatcounselfailedtomake.ItturnsoutthatBobbyhasalonghistory `  ofmentalhealthdiagnoses,beginningwithhyperactivityandprescribeduseofRitalinandamphetaminefromchildhood,andgraduatingtoadiagnosis,madenearlyadecadebeforehiscurrentcrime,ofbipolarmania.Documentsobtainedfromprison,jail,andhospitalrecordsshowbeyonddisputethathisbipolarmaniadiagnosisisquitelegitimate.Thejailrecordsinparticulartellanamazingstoryfromhisincarcerationforthecurrentcrime,demonstratingthathebehavesinanincrediblybizarrefashionwhennotproperlymedicated,butdoesquitewellwhenhegetshismedication.Mentalhealthexperts,whocouldhavepreparedreportsortestifiedattheRomerohearing,wouldhaveexploredthelinksbetween p bipolarmaniaandbothselfmedicationwithillegaldrugsandcriminalconduct,puttingthewholepictureofBobbysstrikesandcurrentcrimeinafardifferentlightthanthepaucityoffavorablefactspresentedattheRomerohearing. T   Thegoalhereistofashionahabeaswhichincludesallofthismaterial!ineffect,puttingforwardtheRomerofactsandargumentthateffectivecounselshouldhavepresented < !explaininghoweffectivecounselwouldhaveinvestigatedandpresentedthismaterial,andwhythereisareasonableprobabilityofamorefavorableoutcome,i.e.,agrantofRomero " relief,butforcounselsfailuretoeffectivelyrepresenttheclientattheRomerohearing. #  LLLL  JonathanGrossmanputtogetherahabeaslikethisintheRubialescase,arguingthat h%  counselwasineffectiveinfailingtopresentafullpictureofthedefendantsmentalillnessanditsconnectionstohiscurrentandpastcriminalbehavior.AlthoughtheRubialescase (P# waswonondirectappeal,onecantunderestimatetheeffectofahabeasinconnectionwithitinthatcase,orinyourown.  Finally,asnotedabove,incasesliketheOBrienandThimmescasesmentioned +4' above,IACmustberaised,eitherondirectappealorbyahabeas,wherethetrialcourts 0-(  Romerodenialisbasedonanimproperfactor,oronfactsnotshownbysubstantialevidence,  buttrialcounselfailstoobject.LL#LII.8  EIGHTHAMENDMENTPROPORTIONALITYANALYSIS:SIGNS  OFLIFE.    LLLLLLLLLL  AftertheSupremeCourtsdecisionsinEwingandAndrade,EighthAmendment d  attacksonThreeStrikespunishmentsascruelandunusualappeareddeadinthewater.Therewere,however,somesliversofhope.InEwing,aclearmajorityoftheCourtupheld  L  theconceptofnarrowproportionalityreviewofnoncapitalsentences. (SeeEwing,supra, H  538U.S.atp.2022,plur.opin.ofOConnor,J.andatpp.3537,diss.opin.ofBreyer,J.)   # ٕ#And,surprisinglyenough,adifferentmajorityconcludedthatthe25tolifesentenceimposed 0  onMr.Ewingforstealinggolfclubswas grosslydisproportionatetothechargedoffense. ,|  (SeeEwing,supra,atpp.3852,diss.opin.ofBreyer,J.,joinedbyGinsburg,Stevens& x Souter,JJ.;seealsoEwingatp.31,conc.opin.ofScalia,J.,concludingthatthepluralitys  discussionofEwingspunishment inallfairness,doesnotconvincinglyestablishthat25-years-to-lifeisaproportionatepunishmentforstealingthreegolfclubs.)BecauseJusticeScaliadoesnotrecognizetheproportionalityprincipleembracedbysevenofhiscolleagues,neitherofthesesetsofnumbersaddeduptoamajorityinfavorofdefendantEwingsEighthAmendmentclaim.However,thisconfusingamalgamofopinionssignifiesthatthematterisfarfromsettled,andthatEighthAmendmentproportionalityargumentsinnoncapitalcases,suchasthoseinvolvingtheThreeStrikesLaw,continuetohavevitality,andmustbejudgedonacasebycasebasis.# e# $t   SinceEwingandAndrade,mostEighthAmendmentclaimsundertheThreeStrikes p  Lawhavebeenflatlyrejectedinunpublishedopinionsinstateandfederalcourt.However,twofavorabledevelopments,oneinfederalcourt,andtheotherinstatecourt,providesomeencouragement,andshouldspurusontocontinuetoraisecrueland/orunusualpunishmentargumentsinStrikescasesinwhichthedenialofRomeroappearsparticularlyunfair. %  LL  A. TheNinthCircuitandRamirez . l'" LLLL!  ThefirstfavorabledevelopmentcameinRamirezv.Castro(9thCir.2004)365F.3d  )Y$  755,acasewhichsignaledtheintentionoftheNinthCircuittocontinuetolookseriouslyatEighthAmendmentproportionalityargumentsforpersonssentencedundertheThreeStrikesLaw.AfterreviewingrecentEighthAmendmentjurisprudence,includingEwingand ,=(# Andrade,themajorityinRamirezfoundthatRamirezssentenceof25tolifeforshoplifting  atwohundreddollarVCRwithtworobberypriorswasgrosslydisproportionatetothe L natureofthecurrentoffenseandoffender.ThecourtstressedthefactthatRamirezstworobberypriors,forwhichhereceivedprobationandaoneyearjailterm,werehisonlycriminalconductofnote,andthathehadneverbeentostateprisonbefore,concludingthat [t]hegravityofRamirezscriminalhistory...palesincomparisontothelengthyrecidivisthistoriesdiscussedaboveinSolem,Ewing,andAndrade.(Id.,atp.769.)Basedonthe x  minornatureofthecurrentcrimeandtheunusuallylimitedcriminalhistoryofthedefendant,theNinthCircuitconcludedthatRamirezhad theextremelyrarecasethatgivesrisetoaninferenceofgrossdisproportionality....(Id.,atp.770,citingHarmelinv.Michigan (1991) \  501U.S.957,# #1005,conc.opin.ofKennedy,J.)     Theensuingintrajurisdictionalandinterjurisdictionalcomparisonsbythecourtin D  Ramirezled,asitshouldfromanyfaircourt,toaconclusionthatthesentenceviolatedthe @  grossdisproportionalityprincipleoftheEighthAmendment.(Id.,atpp.770773.)The   NinthCircuittheneasilyovercamethefinalhurdleunderAEDPA,concludingthattheanalysisofthestateCourtofAppealwasdeficientundercontrollingSupremeCourtauthoritybecauseitwasnotinformedbyrequisiteobjectivefactorsinvolvedinproperproportionalityanalysis,inthatthestateappellatecourtfailedentirelytoconsider (1)thenonviolentnatureofRamirezsthreecrimes,noneofwhichinvolvedaweapon;(2)hisminimalcriminalhistory,comprisedofonefelonyconvictionforpettytheftwithapriorandtwofelonyconvictionschargedinonecriminalcomplainttowhichhepleadedguilty;and(3)thathehadbeenincarceratedonbutoneoccasionforsixmonthsincountyjail!notstateprison!beforehewassentencedto25yearstolife.(Id.,atp.775.)Thecourtthengranted 8! habeasrelief.  Reyesv.Brown(9thCir.2005)399F.3d964wasasecondfavorablepostEwing #  NinthCircuitcase.ThemajorityinReyesconcludedthatitcouldnotruleoutgross %l  disproportionalityundertheEighthAmendmentfora25tolifesentencebasedonacurrentfelonyconvictionforperjury.Thecourtnotedthattheactinquestion,makingfalsestatementsinaDMVapplication,isseparatelypunishableunderCalifornialawasamisdemeanor,pointingoutthatthisdemonstratedthatReyessact isviewedbysocietyasamongthelessseriousoffenses.(Id.,atp.967,quotingSolemv.Helm (1983)463U.S. +& 277,# #Ԁ296.)ThemajoritynotedthatReyessfirststrike,forresidentialburglary,wasnota ,4( violentoffense.Withrespecttothesecondstrike,anadultconvictionforrobbery,themajorityinReyesfoundthattherewasaninadequaterecordfromthedistrictcourtonwhich L todeterminethenatureandcharacteroftheoffense.SinceafindingthatthiswasnotaparticularlyseriousorviolentcrimecouldleadtoagrantofhabeasreliefundertheauthorityofRamirez,theNinthCircuitremandedthecasetothedistrictcourtforfurtherhearing  0 regardingthenatureofReyesspriorrobberyconviction.(Id.,app.968969.) , | LLd  B. CarmonyII .Thesecondfavorabledevelopmentoccurredinastateappellate  H court,inthesameCarmonycasewhichproducedtheunfortunatestateSupremeCourt G  opinioninCarmonyIthatslammedthedooronmeaningfulreviewofatrialcourtsdenial   ofRomerorelief. InCarmonyIIg 1#  9      ,theThirdDistrictstruckdowna25tolifesentenceunder /  theThreeStrikeslawforatechnicalviolationofthesection290sexregistrationlaws,findingthepunishmenttobecrueland/orunusualunderboththestateandfederalconstitutions.Afternotingthatanyviolationofsection290wasafelonyoffense,andthussubjecttotheprovisionsoftheThreeStrikesLaw,thecourtinCarmonyIIdescribedthe _ defendantsviolationofthelaw!afailuretoupdatehisregistrationwithinfivedaysofhisbirthdaywhenhehadregisteredatthesameaddressamonthearlier!asa passivenonviolent,regulatoryoffensethatposednodirectorimmediatedangertosociety.(Id.,at C p.1078.)  CarmonyIIremindsusofanimportantprincipleofEighthAmendment  jurisprudence.Whilerecidivismisafactorwhichcanlegitimatelyjustifyincreasesinpunishment,theemphasisofproportionalityanalysismustbethecurrentoffense.(Id.,atp. #s 1079.)L8  Pastoffensesdonotthemselvesjustifyimpositionofanenhancedsentenceforthecurrentoffense.(Ewing,supra,538U.S.atp.26(leadopn.ofOConnor, "  J.).)TheDoubleJeopardyClauseprohibitssuccessivepunishmentforthesameoffense.(ExParteLange# #[(1874)85U.S.163,] Ԁ173;Wittev.United $  States[# f#(1995)515U.S.389, ]395396.)Thepolicyoftheclausetherefore % ! circumscribestherelevanceofrecidivism.(Duranv.Castro[(E.D.Cal.2002) & " 227F.Supp.2d1121,]1131,citingMongev.California(1998)524U.S.721, ' # 729.)Totheextentthe punishmentgreatlyexceedsthatwarrantedbytheaggravatedoffense,itbeginstolookverymuchasiftheoffenderisactuallybeingpunishedagainforhisprioroffenses.(Duranv.Castro,supra,277 * &  F.Supp.2datp.1130.)    LLLr(_Carmony_II,supra,atp.1080.) 0   Asimilarargumentcanbepresentedinboth290casessimilartoCarmonyandin | simpledrugpossessioncases,suchastheabovecitedDuranv.Castrocase,whichare  arguablyvictimlessoffensesinvolvingtechnicalviolationsofthelawinwhichanaddictpossessesthemeansofsatisfyinghisaddiction.: 1#  10      ׀ `    CarmonyIIacceptstheratherindisputablepointthatthe25tolifesentenceimposed   inCaliforniaforrecidivistminoroffendersisgrosslyexcessivewhencomparedtothelawsofeveryotherstate,ortopunishmentsimposedunderCalifornialawformuchmoreseriouscrimesoutsideoftheStrikeslawcontext.(CarmonyII,supra,127Cal.App.4thatpp.1081   1082# # .)# # ,  L8  Aone-size-fits-allsentencedoesnotallowforgradationsinculpabilitybetweencrimesandthereforemaybedisproportionatetothecrimewhen,ashere,thecrimeisminorandthepenaltysevere.ManyofthecurrentoffensescommittedbyThreeStrikeoffendersareseriousorviolentoffensesorfeloniesposingfargreaterthreatstothepublicssafetyandinvolvingfargreaterculpabilitythantheoffensecommittedbydefendant.Thus,theanalysisunderthiscriteriaalsosupportsourconclusionthatthesentenceisdisproportionatetothegravityoftheoffense.    L LL(CarmonyII,supra,atp.182.)  LL  C. Conclusion:KeepThoseCrueland/orUnusualArgumentsComing . t LLLL  AfterRamirez,Reyes,andCarmonyII,itsclear(forthetimebeingatleast)that a EighthAmendmentproportionalitychallengesstillhaveachancetobesuccessful.Ifyourclientscurrentcrimeisminorandhiscriminalrecord,includingthestrikes,isnotterriblyviolentornumerous,Ramirezisyourmodel.Ifthestrikepriorsaremoreproblematical,but "E yourclienthasanextremelyminor,technicaltypeoffelonycrime,CarmonyIIprovidesyour A$ bestguide. %    Finally,asamatterofsensiblepractice,weshouldcontinuetoraisecrueland/orunusualpunishmentchallengeunderthestateConstitutionaswellasundertheEighthAmendment.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasyettograntreviewordecideacasebasedonachallengetoaThreeStrikessentenceas cruelorunusualpunishmentunderArticle1,section15oftheCaliforniaConstitution.ThestateSupremeCourtssomewhatsurprisingdenialofreviewinCarmonyIIcouldsignalawillingnesstotakeonsuchaclaim , | underthestatestandardsometimeinthenearfuture.LL  III. ATTACKINGPRIORS  D  LLLL  ManyofthemostsuccessfulchallengestoThreeStrikesSentenceshavebeenbasedonattacksonthepriorconvictionswhichunderlietheinvocationoftheStrikesLaw.Iwillnotsaymuchaboutthissubjectinthisarticle,orinmypresentation,becauseSDAPExecutiveDirectorMichaelKresserisaddressingthetopicdirectlyinhismaterialandpresentation.Assuch,Iwillsimplypresentthefollowingoutlineofpointstocoverthisextremelyimportantsubtopicformypurposes.LLLL   Point1 :Alwaysobtaincopiesofthedocumentsusedtoprovethetruthofaprior E conviction,andreviewthemverycarefully.Specialcareshouldbeusedanytimeoneormoreofyourclientsstrikepriorsisforanoutofstateconviction,orforacrimewhichisnot,inandofitself,astrikewithoutproofofadditionalfactsbeyondthe factoftheconviction,i.e.,personaluseofaweaponorinflictionofgreatbodilyinjury,theresidentialcharacterofaburglary,etc.Ifitsaforeignprior,carefullyresearchtheelementsundertheotherstateslaw,astheywillfrequentlybemissingelementsofaCaliforniaseriousfelony.Sufficiencychallengestoproofofstrikeshavemetwithconsiderablesuccess.LLLLC  Point2 :Ifyourclientadmittedthetruthofastrikeprior,getcopiesofthediscovery " providedbytheprosecutiontoprovethestrikes,particularlywhenthestrikeisacrimesuchasanoldseconddegreeburglary,aviolationofPenalCodesection245(a)(1),oranoutofstateconviction.Icanpersonallyrecallatleasthalfadozensuchcaseswherereviewoftheprosecutionsdiscoveryonthepriorshowedthatthecrimewasnotreallyastrike,atleastontherecordprovided,leadingtosuccessfulclaimsforhabeasreliefbasedoncounselsineffectivenessinnotcontestingthesufficiencyofproofandforpersuadinghisorherclienttoadmitastrikewhichwas,infact,notreallyprovableasastrike.Samplewritsareavailable.  -[(" LLLL  Point3 :Besuretoexplore,raise,andpreservevariousfederalconstitutionalclaims L inconnectionwithproofofpriorconvictions,e.g.,LLLL{  Subpointa :TheApprendijurytrialrightastoproofofpriorconvictions, 5 particularlyastoelementsofpriorconvictionsbeyondthe factofthepriorconviction] 1#  11      ; 6  LLLL  Subpointb :Juvenilestrikepriorsshouldbechallengedasinadequatebasedonthe   lackofajurytrialrightinconnectionwiththeadjudicationofsuchjuvenileoffenses;a 1#  12      ׀and  o LLLLP  Subpointc :Ifyouresuccessfulinarguinginsufficiencyofevidence,assertadouble    jeopardybartoretrialofthestrike,arguingthattheApprendilineofcaseseffective X  overrules Mongev.California(1998)524U.S.721# z#.bX 1#  13       T  LLPLIV.8  FINDINGWINNABLEISSUESTHATCANGETSTRIKES  p  CONVICTIONSREVERSED .$t   LyLL+  AsignificantnumberofThreeStrikessentencesarereversedonappealorhabeasbasedongroundsrelatingtotrialorsentencingerrorthatsnotdirectlytiedtotheStrikeslaw.Inmanycases,thereversalsandremandscanleadtolessthanThreeStrikepleabargains,dismissalofstrikes,ortrialswhichresultinareducedsentence.Obviously,asadvocateswemustalwaysfocusonsuchissuesonourclientsbehalf.Ithastobethecase,atleastwithsomeappellatejustices,thattheexistenceofanunjustandarbitrarilylengthylifesentenceisafactorwhichmayinfluenceinourfavorareviewingcourtsdeterminationofissuesinvolvingjuryinstructions,counselsineffectivenessattrial,orproceduralerrorsofaconstitutionaldimension.Whatfollows,togiveyouapictureofhowthiscanhappen,isarandomlyselectedsetofexamples.LLLL  1.Inthe Magnan case,DallasSacherobtainedanOSConahabeaspetitionbased !< ontrialcounselsfailuretoproduceexculpatoryevidenceattrial,leadingtoreversalofaThreeStrikessentenceinadrugcase.Magnanwasconvictedofpossessinglessthanagramofheroinandpossessingmethamphetamineforsale.Themethwasfoundinacigaretteboxnexttohisgirlfriend,whowasamethuser.Magnanusedthesamebrandofcigarettesandpossessed$300.Accordingtoapoliceofficertestifyingasanexpert,theamountofmethwasjustunderanounceandthedifferencebetweenanounceandtheamountseizedcouldbesoldforabout$300.Magnanhadtoldtrialcounselthatthe$300hepossessedwasrecentlywiredtohimbyhismother,afactthatwasverifiable.Trialcounsel,however,madenoattempttoinvestigatetheclaimorotherwiseexplainthepossessionofthemoney.Thesuperiorcourtgrantedrelief,andMagnanendedupbeingresentencedonthesimplepossessionchargetoasecondstrikesixyeardeterminateterm,andwinninghisimmediaterelease.LLLL\  2.Intheearlier Lowery case,DallasSacheralsoobtainedanOSCandultimately   habeasreliefforathirdstrikesentencedclientbasedoncounselsineffectivenessinfailingtoraiseameritoriousFourthAmendmentissue.LLLL  3.InPeoplev. Letteer (2002)103Cal.App.4th1308,panelattorneyBrianPoriwon  reversalofathreestrikessentenceforArbuckleerror. 1#  14      ׀Whendefendantwasfirstsentenced, ^ theoriginalsentencingjudgedismissedtwoofdefendant'sstrikesforpriorfelonyconvictions.Inafirstappeal,theCourtofAppealfoundthistobeanabuseofdiscretionandremanded.TheStatethenhadthetrialjudgewhohadgrantedRomeroreliefdisqualified, B andanewsentencingjudgereinstatedthedismissedstrikes.Theclaiminthesecondappealwasthatsentencebyadifferentjudgeviolatedhispleabargain,becausedefendantexpectedtobesentencedbytheoriginalsentencingjudge.TheCourtofAppealagreed,findingunder !& Arbucklethatanimpliedtermofthebargainwasthatsentencingwastobeimposedbythe "#r judgewhoacceptedthebargain,thatsentencingbyadifferentjudgeconstitutedasignificantdeviationofthebargain,andthatthedefendantshouldhavebeenallowedtowithdrawhisplea.LLLL  4.Inthe Price case,panelattorneyCarolKoenigobtainedanunpublishedreversal (# ofaThreeStrikessentenceimposedafterrevocationofprobationonthegroundsthatthe )=% defendantinthiscasefailedtoreceiveeventhemodicumofdueprocessrightsassociatedwithviolationsofprobation.LLLL  5.PanelattorneyCourtneyShevelsonobtainedafullreversalofconvictionforinstructionalerrorinathirdstrikecase,Peoplev. Jensen (2003)114Cal.App.4th224. 0 DefendantwaschargedwithanattempteddistributionofharmfulsexualmattertoaminorovertheInternet(664/288.2(b)).HeengagedinsexualdiscussionswithandsentexplicitphotostotwopoliceofficersposingasyoungboysontheInternet.Thejurywastoldthattheword seducemeantpersuadingoneintosexualactivity."Sexualactivity"wasnotdefined,butthejurywasgivenadefinitionof"sexualconduct"thatincluded"masturbation"thatwas"performedalone."Inreversingtheconviction,theCourtofAppealagreedwithdefendantthatthetrialcourt'sinstructiononthe"intentorpurposeofseducing"elementwaserroneous,inthatthe"seducing"intentelementrequiredthattheperpetratorintendedtoenticeaminortoengageinasexualactinvolvingphysicalcontactbetweentheperpetratorandtheminor,andthatmerelyintendingtoenticeamaleminortomasturbatehimselfdidnotsatisfythisrequiredelementoftheoffense.Theerrorwasprejudicial,asitwashotlycontestedattrialwhetherdefendanteverintendedtomeetwiththe"minors"andhavephysicalcontact.  Unfortunately,Mr.Jensenobtainedanevengreaterthirdstrikesentenceonremand,whentheprosecutorcharged,onthesamefacts,anewcrime,attemptedlewdacts(664/288(a)).Ironically,thejury,nowproperlyinstructedonthemeaningof seduce,acquittedJensenontheoriginalfelony288.2(b)charges,butconvictedhimonthenewgreatercharge.Thesecondappealhasrecentlycommenced.Doesanyonespotanobviousissueonappeal?LL^V   STICKINGWITHIT . S#   Justafinalpointwhich,thoughweallknowit,bearsrepeatingadnauseumuntilitbecomesamantra:dontgiveupwhenyouloseintheCourtofAppeal.BeyondtheobviousneedtofileareviewpetitioninthestateSupremeCourt,goingtheextramilefortheclientinaThirdStrikecasecanoftenmeanthedifferencebetweenalifetimeinprisonandadeterminatesentenceorevencompletereversal.Herearejustacoupleofsituationsinwhichthiscanoccur.LLLL  ?A?A@a@ABAAABC1C. HabeasDenials .Dontquitifyourstatecourthabeaspetitionis(a)summarily ,(! deniedintheSixthDistrict,or,(b)isdeniedinsuperiorcourtafteranOSCissues.Keeppluggingatnextlevel.WehavegottensurprisinggoodresultsinhavingOSCsissuedbyCal.SupremeCourtinfirsttypeofcase,andhavingasecondOSCorgrantofhabeasreliefinthesecondinstance.  AgoodexampleofthefirstsituationinvolvesthehabeaspetitionbroughtbypanelattorneyMarkFarbmaninthe Quintero case.Inthatcase,thedefendantwasconvictedof , | twostorerobberiesbasedonweakeyewitnessevidence.HistrialattorneyfailedtopresentexculpatoryalibievidencewhichwouldhaveshownthatQuinterowasinLasVegasandPasadenawhenthecrimeswerecommitted,actingasmanagertohisbrothersmusicalgroup,withbothwitnessanddocumentaryevidencetosupportthealibidefense.TheCourtofAppealsummarilydeniedthepetitionwithoutsomuchasarequestforaninformalresponse.Onareviewpetition,theSupremeCourtaskedforaninformalresponse,thengrantedreview,transferringthecasebacktotheSixthDistrictwithdirectionstoissueanOSC.  Agoodexampleofthesecondtypeofsituationisthe Ochoa case,inwhichpanel + attorneySherryFlemingobtainedanOSCinapossessionforsaleThreeStrikescasebasedoncounselsineffectivenessinfailingtoraiseameritoriousFourthAmendmentargument.Whenthepetitionwasdeniedinthesuperiorcourtbaseduponfallaciousreasoning,Ms.FlemingpreparedaprobonosuccessorpetitionintheCourtofAppeal.Sheendedupbeingreappointedinthecase,andwinningagrantofhabeasreliefforherclientinanunpublishedopinion.LLLLT  2. Federalize,Federalize,Federalize. Manyissuesthatarelostinstatecourtstand >  abetterchanceofwinninginasubsequentfederalhabeaspetition.Whenthecasescomebacktostatecourtafterafederalhabeaswin,itisoftenmanyyearslater,andthechancesaresometimesexcellentfortheprosecutortomakethedefendantanofferhecantrefusetoalessthanThreeStrikessentence.  Forexample,inmyown Mack case,IraisedaFarettaissueinstatecourtregarding &" arequestforselfrepresentationmadeonthedaybeforethejurywasempaneledinMr.Macksthirdstrike,strongarmrobberycase.WelostinstatecourtunderCaliforniastimelinessrule,butwonthecaseonfederalhabeasunderthecontrollingNinthCircuitcases,whichholdthataselfrepresentationrequestistimelyifmadebeforethejuryisempaneledandnotforthepurposeofdelay.(Moorev.Calderon (9thCir.1997)108F.3d261# i#.)When >-(  thecasewentbacktothetrialcourt,theprosecutoroffered,andMr.Mackaccepted,adoubledmiddletermsecondstrikesentence,whichlefthimwithlessthantwoyearstoserveonhissentence.LLLL  3. DontBeAfraidtoRaiseaWinningIssueLate. Sometimeswemississuesor 0 decidenottoraisethemfortacticalreasons.Everyonceinawhile,theoneweletgetawayturnsouttobethewinninglotteryticket.  Thisturnedouttothesituationinthe Cousins case.PanelattorneyJillFordyce,   assistedbyYoursTruly,representedCousins,whowassentencedto25tolifefora290violation.Theprosecutorhadchargedtwoviolations,oneforfraudulentregistration,andthesecondforfailuretoregistera changeoflocation.Thejuryhungonthefirstcount,butconvictedonthesecond.Theprosecutorhadarguedthatthe changeoflocationhappenedwhenMr.CousinsmovedhiscarablockfurtherthantheSalvationArmyaddresshehadgivenwhenheregistered.Ondirectappeal,Ms.Fordycearguedinstructionalerrorforafailuretoexplaintothejurythata changeinlocationrequiringahomelesspersontoregisterwiththepolicemustbeasubstantialchange,andnotjustatrivialone.TheunpublishedopinionSixthDistrictopinionrejectingtheclaimofinstructionalerrordidsosolelyonaconclusionthattheerrorwasharmless,basedonahypothesizedjuryverdictonatheoryofthecasedifferentthantheonearguedbytheprosecutortothejury.Apetitionforreviewonthisissuefailedtosucceed,anditlookedasifalongfightinfederalcourtwouldensueastothismeritoriousissue.  However,notlongafterreviewwasdenied,theFirstDistrictdecidedPeoplev.North D (2003)112Cal.App.4th621,whichheldthatthe changeoflocationlanguageinsubdivision(a)(1)(A)ofsection290wasunconstitutionallyvague.Ironically,Ms.FordyceandIhadidentifiedthispotentialissue,butdecidedtopassitupashopeless,restingourargumentinsteadonanargumentthatassumedthattheterm locationcouldbemadeclearenoughbyrequiringasubstantialchangeinlocation.AfterNorthwasdecided,Ms.Fordyce p%  agreedtoprepareaproperhabeaspetitionforMr.Cousinsraisingthe voidforvaguenessissuebothasbasedonachangeinthelawandappellateIACinfailingtoraisetheissue.Tooursurprise,theSupremeCourtissuedanOSConthisground.Toourdelight,theprosecutiondidnotopposethegrantofhabeasrelief,aconcessionallthemoremiraculousbecausethequestionablereasoningoftheCourtofAppealsopinionwouldhavebeenaperfectlyplausiblewayofopposingthehabeaspetitiononharmlesserrorgrounds.The 8-(  chargesagainstMr.Cousinswerethendismissed,andheisnowafreeman,wiselyliving  outsideSantaClaraCountyatpresent. L LL+  @%CONCLUSION  KKHLLH HLL HK  Whenchallengesonappealorhabeasdonotsucceed,Itellclientsandfamily  d membersinThreeStrikescasesthatItrulybelievethatthetimewillcome!eithersoonerorlater!whenthePeopleofthisState(andIdontmeantheprosecution,butthePeople)willcometotheirsensesandrepealthemostunjustpartsofthislaw.Sadly,thistimemaynotcomeuntilmanyofourclientswhoshouldneverhavegottenlifesentencesareold,sickly,andexpensiveforthestatetotakecareof.Hopefully,itwonttakesolong.  Butfornow,theStrikeslawisarealitythatourclients,andwe,astheiradvocates,havetodealwith.Ihopethislengthypeptalkonpaperhashelpedyoutothinkthroughvariousstrategiesforfightingtheinjusticeofthislawinpractice.IIKKK