People v. Carmony
14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880, 92 P.3d 369, 33 Cal. 4th 367 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's decision not to dismiss a prior serious felony conviction allegation under California's Three Strikes Law is reviewed for abuse of discretion. An appellate court will not reverse such a decision unless it is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it.
Facts:
- Due to a 1983 conviction for forcible oral copulation with a minor, Keith Ishmeal Carmony was legally required to register as a sex offender.
- In 1993, Carmony was convicted of two separate counts of assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to cause great bodily injury against two different girlfriends, one of whom suffered a miscarriage as a result.
- These three convictions—the 1983 sex offense and the two 1993 assaults—constituted Carmony's three prior 'strikes' under California law.
- Carmony had an extensive adult and juvenile criminal record beyond his three strikes, including convictions for burglary, theft, driving under the influence, and numerous parole violations.
- Carmony had a long history of alcohol and drug abuse, which contributed to his past offenses, but he had never completed a substance abuse treatment program.
- On September 16 and September 23, 1999, Carmony properly registered with the Redding Police Department to update his address.
- Carmony subsequently failed to fulfill his legal obligation to register again within five working days of his birthday, which was on October 22, 1999, constituting a felony violation.
- Upon discovering the violation, Carmony's parole agent summoned him to her office, where he was arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- The People charged Keith Ishmeal Carmony in trial court with one count of willful failure to register as a sex offender and alleged three prior 'strike' convictions.
- Carmony pled guilty to the charge and admitted the three prior strike allegations.
- Carmony filed a motion requesting that the trial court exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to dismiss two of his prior strike convictions.
- The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Carmony to a term of 26 years to life pursuant to the Three Strikes Law.
- Carmony, as appellant, appealed the sentence to the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss any of Carmony's strikes.
- The People, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a higher court overrule a trial judge's refusal to dismiss a prior 'strike' conviction allegation under Penal Code section 1385, and if so, did the trial court abuse its discretion by declining to strike any of the defendant's prior convictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
Yes, a higher court can review a trial court's refusal to dismiss a prior 'strike' conviction allegation, but only under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. The court's reasoning is that a decision not to strike a prior is the 'flip side of the same coin' as a decision to strike one, and thus both discretionary actions should be reviewed under the same standard. To prevail on appeal, a defendant must show the trial court's decision was so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it. The Three Strikes Law creates a strong presumption that a conforming sentence is proper. An abuse of discretion only occurs in 'extraordinary' circumstances, such as when a court is unaware of its discretion or considers impermissible factors. Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It properly considered Carmony's entire criminal history, which was lengthy and violent, his poor prospects, and his failure to address his substance abuse. The Court of Appeal erred by focusing solely on the technical nature of the current offense while ignoring the defendant's background, which showed he fell squarely within the spirit of the Three Strikes Law as a 'revolving door' career criminal.
Concurring - Moreno, J.
Yes, a higher court can review the trial court's refusal to dismiss a strike for abuse of discretion, and no such abuse occurred here on statutory grounds. The opinion emphasizes that the majority's holding is confined to the trial court's statutory discretion under Penal Code section 1385 and does not address whether the resulting sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. It notes that while a 26-year-to-life sentence for a technical registration violation seems disproportionate, the defendant's extensive and violent criminal history places him within the scope of the Three Strikes Law. The opinion reluctantly concurs, suggesting that if the public finds such sentences unreasonable, the remedy lies with the electorate to amend the law, as the constitutional bar for cruel and unusual punishment is extremely high.
Analysis:
This case firmly establishes that a trial court's refusal to strike a prior conviction under the Three Strikes Law is reviewable on appeal, but it sets an extremely high bar for reversal. By applying the highly deferential 'abuse of discretion' standard, the court reinforces the trial judge's authority and creates a strong presumption in favor of imposing a Three Strikes sentence. The decision clarifies that the entirety of a defendant's criminal history and personal circumstances must be considered, not just the triggering offense. This precedent significantly limits an appellate court's power to reweigh sentencing factors, ensuring that only the most arbitrary or irrational refusals to grant leniency will be overturned.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Carmony