People v. Dain

Summary

The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviews the prosecution’s appeal from an order dismissing Yacob Dain’s prior strike conviction and a five-year serious-felony enhancement. The court concludes that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the prior strike because it applied an incorrect understanding of the law, but holds that the proper remedy is remand for the trial court to reconsider the Romero motion. The court finds no abuse of discretion in dismissing the section 667(a) enhancement or imposing the middle term for the principal offense.

Holdings

1. Penal Code section 1385(c) does not apply to a trial court's decision whether to dismiss a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes law because the Three Strikes law is an alternative sentencing scheme, not a sentence enhancement.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Dain's prior strike conviction because it relied principally on the conviction's remoteness and generalized changes in sentencing policy, without identifying circumstances showing that Dain fell outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law.
3. The proper remedy is to reverse the order dismissing the strike and remand for the trial court to decide the Romero motion in the first instance under the governing law and any admissible and relevant arguments and evidence.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the five-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667(a) based on the age of the prior conviction.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the middle term for the principal offense of home-invasion robbery.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Dain's prior strike conviction under Penal Code section 1385(a) based principally on the age of the conviction and perceived changes in sentencing policy.
2. Whether Penal Code section 1385(c), including the provision giving great weight to a prior conviction more than five years old, applies to dismissal of a prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes law.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the five-year serious-felony enhancement under Penal Code section 667(a).
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the middle term rather than the upper term for home-invasion robbery.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded