WPCF хҏ$Z/rEhA]$/1x(bᣢ4B3jxjW b[Ώ{x@ܥݞNJ/3hkȨj铃82!&L<7?ٯ<9z{IEDe%sknj8dbJWoq\2P$6x'Hue7azw&_QlgZL"@D&)EJA+ߛ?*X,s,r6UGRȜ?̷Zgβ[s{Rj/Etoֆ„ܚt*!V0_/g~!7mU}\SpY|` у.l#ҿ/Sz=Yg s [IBFR@tVNjҵCcWCpRKgb~ܯ89Q8~WQS ƝiU: % 0 r n 0/ # N^ w4 mU@ 0U 0X 0; 0 0 0x 0+ 0 0 0  0 0 0i 0 0 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 0[ 0 0 0G 0 0q! 0! 0" 0k# 0>)$ 0g$ 0_% 0A& 0#' 0( 0( 0) 0* 02U+ 0+ 0:, 0Y, 0_- 0 u- 0. 00 B*2 D/12 D+`2 02 D/4 04 065 05 0:6 0^7 0<d7 1e7 0N8U6S8U>8U*8M8 1u8 72j9 D39 C9M9M9UN9 0 ?:M:M:M:M:M:M:M: 1:M; 01c; 1;(p<b< 1sD 72mE 0wE 0[F<6X9`("Courier 10cpiX' 9Three strikes 2  0 .   (!2$ F!            Ӏ  0  #|x <6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@(dF$           \\Sirius\HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL6,,,,0,6 q5ing 0U(9 Z(Times New Roman *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *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 ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7@(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7A(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d?)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7C(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?N%2A`Arial?  SM\  `&Times New RomanS7A(X75+ ` hp x 5  ?)2dxd0KS.SampleKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKL<6X9`(Courier NewKSM\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Pi)????'dxddd(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII AndradeLockyerCepadaGarcettiHarmelinRummelSolemBanyardF.SuppCarmonyMeeks DUI Ayon LWOPspousalFuhrmancarjacking WelfBarroRhoadsLainoCastelloMoeniusGipsonWoodfordBaldasar S.CtAndradesTigheNicholsSubp]aragraphsub]paragraphv.Garcia MoskKennardWerdegarWoodellHazeltonasportationGarrettI]ntimidationNeely t]heValladoliArevalosTindallt]hereestoppedApprendiAlmendarezSengpadychith EppsKeliiSoglinCalderonHammon OpnHouck ISS ASLT GBI DLY WPN ADWBanuelosEncinasSohal USCZangariGuerrerothat thatBartowdeclarantMonrealMongeSouterGinsburgRicciardulliBarraganKeelenDominguezAcosta DSLEspinozaErvinDotsonIngramWilksDurdenMcKeeTassellMcClainRosburyDeloza A]tDanowskiv.Thomas TahlBarellaCerveradepublishedBlakelyUrbanoAppealabilityGillispiePhilpot Vong I]nPoslofCluffCal.App337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)e1)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# F!            _X3MXXX    8V3MVXXdd8@  THREESTRIKESISSUESOUTLINE   @(Revised:May14,2007)    FDAPstaffattorneysKathyKahnandAlan_Siraco_, U withresearchassistancefromFDAPlawclerks,Sean_Tilton_,SarahSpiegeland_Oleg_ԀAlbert >   ' w @" TABLEOFCONTENTS  !!G(#Page    e(33P"a3"  a32  I  .3  0    GENERALPROVISIONS#""J(#.uu!(#(##1a3݌ W Ќ  "a3"  a32  II  .3  0    CONSTITUTIONALITY#""J(#. (#(##1a3 ݌ ) y Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  EqualProtectionClaims#""J(#.+` (#` (##1g;݌  K Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  ExPostFactoPunishmentClaims#""J(#.3` (#` (##1g;݌    Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  CruelAndUnusualClaims#""J(#.,` (#` (##1g;,݌   Ќ  "a3"  a3 2  III  .3  0    QUALIFICATIONSFOR STRIKEPRIORS#""J(#.1(#(##3a3 = ݌ q  Ќ  "g;"  g; 0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  Generally#""J(#.v v ` (#` (##3g; L ݌ C Ќ  "g;"  g;! 0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  JuvenilePriors#""J(#.  #` (#` (##4g;! N ݌ e Ќ  "g;"  g;) 0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  Foreignpriors#""J(#. "` (#` (##5g;) V ݌ 7 Ќ  "g;"  g;0 0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  Somespecificfelonies#""J(#.ss*` (#` (##6g;0 ] ݌   Ќ  "h"  h?0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Violent#""J(#. (# (##6h?l݌  Ќ  "h"  hS0  0` (#(#2  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Serious#""J(#. (# (##6hS݌ ] Ќ  "a3"  a3g2  IV  .3  0    PLEADINGANDPRETRIALPROCEDURE#""J(#..(#(##7a3g݌ / Ќ  "g;"  g;l0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  Mustbepledandproved#""J(#.''+` (#` (##7g;l݌  Q Ќ  "g;"  g;|0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  TimelyPleading#""J(#.#` (#` (##7g;|݌ !#  Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  Limitationsonpleabargaining#""J(#.2` (#` (##7g;݌ #" Ќ  "a3"  a32  V  .3  0    TRIALRIGHTSANDPROCEDURE#""J(#.  )(#(##8a3݌ w% $ Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  Righttojurytrial#""J(#.'` (#` (##8g;݌ I'"& Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  TrialProcedure#""J(#.DD#` (#` (##8g;݌ )k$( Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  Proofofpriors#""J(#. #` (#` (##9g;݌ *=&* Ќ  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Generally#""J(#." (# (##9h݌ ,(, Ќ  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Chargingdocument,minuteorders,abstractsofjudgment#""J(#.P (# (##9h݌  Ќ  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  PleaTranscript#`"`"I(#.{{( (# (##10 h=݌ k Ќ  "h"  h30  0` (#(#2  4  .3  0 ` (#` (#  FormerTestimony#`"`"I(#.) (# (##10h3`݌ =  Ќ  "h"  hQ0  0` (#(#2  5  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ProbationReports#`"`"I(#.dd* (# (##11hQ~݌  _ Ќ  "h"  hp0  0` (#(#2  6  .3  0 ` (#` (#  AppellateOpinions#`"`"I(#.+ (# (##11hp݌  1  Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  Retrialofpriorconvictionallegations#`"`"I(#.));` (#` (##11g;݌   Ќ  "a3"  a3 2  VI  .3  0    SENTENCING#`"`"I(#. (#(##12a3 ݌   Ќ  "g;"  g;!0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  TwoStrikesComputations(667(e)(1))#`"`"I(#.66;` (#` (##12g;!!݌ W  Ќ  "g;"  g;"0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  ThreeStrikesComputations(667(e)(2)(A))#`"`"I(#.@` (#` (##13g;""݌ )y Ќ  "g;"  g;#0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  ConductEnhancementsandsentencingunderThreeStrikes#`"`"I(#.K` (#` (##13g;#$݌ K Ќ  "g;"  g; %0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  ApplicationofThreeStrikesandotherprovisionsaggravatingorenhancingthe  sentence#`"`"I(#.  ` (#` (##13g; %M%݌  Ќ  "g;"  g;&0  2  E  .3  0` (#(#  ApplicationofThreeStrikesandotherrecidivistprovisions#`"`"I(#.P` (#` (##14g;&&݌  Ќ  "g;"  g;'0  2  F  .3  0` (#(#  OtherDualUseIssues#`"`"I(#.dd)` (#` (##14g;''݌ Z Ќ  "g;"  g;(0  2  G  .3  0` (#(#  Consecutivevs.concurrenttermsunderThreeStrikes#`"`"I(#.++H` (#` (##15g;((݌ ,| Ќ  "h"  h)0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Mandatory#`"`"I(#.''" (# (##15h)%*݌ N Ќ  "h"  h+0  0` (#(#2  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Discretionary#`"`"I(#.& (# (##16h+<+݌ !   Ќ  "h"  h*,0  0` (#(#2  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Sameoccasionorsetofoperativefacts#`"`"I(#.@ (# (##16h*,W,݌ #" Ќ  "h"  h_-0  0` (#(#2  4  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Calculatingmultiple3rdstriketermsimposedconsecutively#`"`"I(#.T (# (##17h_--݌ t% $ Ќ  "g;"  g;.0  2  H  .3  0` (#(#  SentencingCreditsLimitations#`"`"I(#.2` (#` (##17g;..݌ F'"& Ќ  "a3"  a3/2  VII  .3  0    JUDICIALPOWERTOSTAY,STRIKEORDISMISSSTRIKEPRIORS(667(f)(2))#`"`"I(#.""T(#(##18a3//݌ )h$( Ќ  "g;"  g;00  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  Discretiontostrikeprior#`"`"I(#..` (#` (##18g;01݌ *:&* Ќ  "g;"  g;20  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  Standing,AppealabilityandStandardofReview#`"`"I(#.B` (#` (##18g;212݌ , (, Ќ  "g;"  g;,30  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  Establishinganabuseofdiscretion#`"`"I(#.II7` (#` (##18g;,3Y3݌  Ќ  "h"  hI40  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Silentrecords#`"`"I(#.  ' (# (##19hI4v4݌ k Ќ  "h"  he50  0` (#(#2  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheWilliamsstandard#`"`"I(#.. (# (##19he55݌ =  Ќ  "h"  h60  0` (#(#2  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ApplicationoftheWilliamsstandard#`"`"I(#.=== (# (##19h66݌  _ Ќ  "Wir"  Wir70  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2  a  .3  0 (# (#  Priornotstrickenorstrikingreversed#`"`"I(#.E(#(##19Wir77݌  1  Ќ  "Wir"  Wir90  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2  b  .3  0 (# (#  Priorstrickenordenialreversed#`"`"I(#.?(#(##20Wir9<9݌   Ќ  "g;"  g;R:0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  RemandProcedure#`"`"I(#.WW$` (#` (##21g;R::݌   Ќ  "a3"  a3\;2  VIII  .3  0    JUDICIALDISCRETIONTOREDUCETRIGGERINGOFFENSETOA W  MISDEMEANOR(17(b))#`"`"I(#.$(#(##21a3\;;݌  @ Ќ   e(33e "a3"  a3I=2  I  .3  0    GENERALPROVISIONS a3I=v=݌(#(# Ќ  The ThreeStrikeslaw,codifiedatsubdivisions(b)through(_i_)ofPenalCodesection667  (enactedbytheLegislature)andPenalCodesection1170.12(Prop.184),doestwothings:(1)it l limitspleabargainingincaseswherethedefendanthasanallegedprior seriousor violent U felonyasthosetermsaredefinedinthePenalCode;and(2)itsetsupanalternativefelony >  sentencingschemefordefendantsfoundtohavesufferedoneormoreprior seriousor ' w  violentfelonyconviction.  `  "a3"  a3@2  II  .3  0    CONSTITUTIONALITYa3@@݌ 2 (#(# Ќ  "g;"  g;A0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  EqualProtectionClaims g;AA݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  0  Thefactthatsomecountieshavemuchmorelenientchargingpoliciesthanothersdoes   notgiverisetoanequalprotectionclaim.(Peoplev.Andrews(1998)65Cal.App.4th q  1098[ Althoughitisdisturbingtorealizethatwhetheragivenoffenseproducesminor Z  sanctionsorlifeinprisonmaydependononesphysicallocationwithinthestate,the C solutiondoesnotlieincourtsrequiringallofthestatesprosecutorstofollowtheleadof ,| themosteccentricamongthem,saystheSanDiegocourtaboutSanFrancisco].)e(#(# 0  TheLosAngelesDistrictAttorneyspolicyshiftafterGarcettileftofficeofonly 7 chargingviolentcurrentoffensesasthirdstrikesdoesnotapplyretroactively.A   defendantsentencedunderthepreviouspolicycouldnotprevailonanequalprotection   claim.(Peoplev.Roman(2001)92Cal.App.4th141.Accord,Peoplev.Floyd(2003)31  Cal.4th179[noequalprotectionclaimarisingfromProp.36'scutoffdatefordrug  treatmentalternativetoprisonfordrugoffenders].)t(#(#  "g;"  g;G0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  ExPostFactoPunishmentClaims g;GH݌F` (#` (# Ќ  0  MandatoryconsecutivesentencingonsubsequentThreeStrikessentencesunder i subdivisions(c)(8)and(e)(2)(B)ofsection667(seeG.1.,below)wherethedefendant  R isalreadyservingatermdoesnotviolatetheprohibitionagainstexpostfactopunishment  ; wherethedefendantwasalreadyservingatermforapre1994offenseandreceiveda !$  mandatoryaggregateconsecutiveterminconnectionwithanewsentenceunderthe " ! ThreeStrikesLaw.(Peoplev.Helms(1997)15Cal.4th608.)#"(#(# "g;"  g;VK0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  CruelAndUnusualClaims g;VKK݌x% $` (#` (# Ќ  0  TheEighthAmendment,whichforbidscruelandunusualpunishments,containsa K'"&  narrowproportionalityprinciplethat appliestononcapitalsentences.(Harmelinv. 4(#' Michigan(1991)501U.S.957,996-997.)InRummelv.Estelle(1980)445U.S.263, )m$( 284285,theCourtheldthatitdidnotviolatetheEighthAmendmentforaStateto *V%) sentenceathree-timeoffendertolifeinprisonwiththepossibilityofparole.InSolemv. *?&*  Helm(1983)463U.S.277,279,theCourtheldthattheEighthAmendmentprohibited a +('+ lifesentencewithoutpossibilityofparoleforaseventhnonviolentfelony,passingabad  $100.00check.(#(#  0  In2003,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtaddressedCaliforniasThreeStrikesLawin k twocases.Inneithercasedidthecourtconcludethatthesentenceconstitutedcrueland T unusualpunishment.(Lockyerv.Andrade(2003)538U.S.63[convictionforpettywith =  aprior,andseveralnonviolentstrikepriors];Ewingv.California(2003)538U.S.11 & v [convictionforgrandtheft,andtwoviolentpriors].) _(#(# 0  Inperformingan8thAmendmentanalysis,thecourtfirstcomparesthegravityofthe  1  offense(includingitsrecidivistcharacter)totheharshnessofthepenalty.(Ewingv.    California,supra,538U.S.atpp.2829;Harmelinv.Michigan,supra,501U.S.atp.   1005.)Then,ifthisthresholdcomparisondemonstratesthepenaltyis grossly   disproportionatetotheoffense,thecourtwillundertakea proportionalityanalysis   considering objectivecriteria,including(_i_)thegravityoftheoffenseandtheharshness n  ofthepenalty;(ii)thesentencesimposedonothercriminalsinthesamejurisdiction;and W  (iii)thesentencesimposedforcommissionofthesamecrimeinotherjurisdictions. @ (Solemv.Helm,supra,463U.S.atp.292.))y(#(# 0  SinceEwing,the9thCircuithasheldthatalifetermundertheThreeStrikesLawwas K cruelandunusualpunishmentforaconvictionofpettytheftwithapriorwithtwo 4  strikesforrobberiesthatarosefromasinglepastcasewhichinvolvedaminimal  amountofforce.(Ramirezv.Castro(9thCir.2004)365F.3d755.Seealso,Reyesv.  Brown(2005)399F.3d964[alifetermundertheThreeStrikesLawforperjurywhere  thedefendanthadtwostrikes,includingarobberywherethedefendanthadaknife,might  becruelandunusual;remandedtoseeifthedefendantspriorssatisfiedEwing];Banyard q v.Duncan(C.D.Cal.2004)342F.Supp.2d865[alifetermundertheThreeStrikesLaw Z forpossessionofaminusculeamountofcocainewithstrikepriorsforanonviolent C robberyandanassaultonhisgirlfriendwascruelandunusualpunishment].),|(#(# 0  AtleastonepaneloftheCaliforniaCourtofAppealhasfoundasentenceforamerely N technicalfailureto updatesexoffenderregistrationwithinfiveworkingdaysof  7 offendersbirthday,wheredefendanthadregisteredhiscorrectaddressonemonthbefore !   hisbirthdayandtheparoleagentknewthatthedefendantcontinuedtoresideatthat " ! address,wascruelandunusual.(Peoplev.Carmony(2005)127Cal.App.4th1066 #" [3DCA].Conversely,anotherpanelhasupheldalifetermwherethedefendantfailedto $# registerandhadalongandseriouscriminalhistory.(Peoplev.Meeks(2004)123 t% $ Cal.App.4th695.)]&!%(#(# 0  Generally,though,evenpriortoAndradeandEwing,Californiacaselawinthisareawas /(#' unfavorabletodefendants.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.Edwards(2002)97Cal.App.4th161 )h$( [convictedofpettywithapriorandsimplepossessionwithresidentialburglary,car *Q%) thefts,andpossessionofsawedoffshotgunpriors];Peoplev.Strong(2001)87 *:&* Cal.App.4th328[convictionforsellingbunkcocaine,mostpriorsweredrugandtheft +#'+ misdemeanors,butonewasforaknifeassault];Peoplev.Stone(1999)75_Cal.App_.4th , (, 707[newoffenseismanufacturingPCP];Peoplev.Martinez(1999)71_Cal.App_.4th  1502[methpossessionandDUI];Peoplev.Cline(1998)60_Cal.App_.4th1327  [shoplifting($648worthofclothes)];Peoplev.Ayon(1996)46_Cal.App_.4th385[7new  robberiesandsentenceis functionalLWOP];Peoplev.Cooper(1996)43_Cal.App_.4th k 815[exfeloninpossessionwith15and30yearoldrobberies];Peoplev.Diaz(1996)41 T _Cal.App_.4th1424[lewdandlasciviouswithmultiplemolestationpriorsarisingfrom =  single1989proceedingforwhichprobationandanexpungement(in1993)hadbeen & v granted];Peoplev._Kinsey_Ԁ(1995)40_Cal.App_.4th1621[attemptedspousalbattery];  _ Peoplev.Cartwright(1995)39_Cal.App_.4th1123,1134[375yearstolifeplus  H enhancementsformultiplesexoffenses].) 1 (#(#  "a3"  a3Fe2  III  .3  0    ݀QUALIFICATIONSFOR STRIKEPRIORSa3Fese݌ (#(# Ќ  "g;"  g;&* uponhisbargain.(Peoplev.Vera(2004)122_Cal.App_.4th970[defendantisestopped +''+ fromcontendingthatthetrialcourtlackedauthorityunderThreeStrikesLawtostrike ,(, seriousfelonyenhancementsundersection667,subdivision(a)wherestrikingthe  enhancementswasagreedtoaspartofapleabargain];Peoplev.Cepada(1996)49  _Cal.App_.4th1235[defendantisestoppedfromaskingtohavethecasesentbackforthe  trialcourttostriketheremaining strikepriorafterpleadingtoanagreementtostrike k onlyone].Butsee,Peoplev.Taylor(1998)63_Cal.App_.4th29[defendantnotestopped T fromraisingahabeasclaimthattrialcourtshouldhaveexerciseddiscretionregarding =  two strikepriorsafterheagreedtoalifeterminexchangeforprosecutorforegoing & v seekingadditionalenhancements]distinguishingCepada.) _(#(#  "a3"  a3ľ2  V  .3  0    TRIALRIGHTSANDPROCEDUREa3ľ݌ 1 (#(# Ќ  "g;"  g;0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  Righttojurytrial g;տ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  0  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466[120S.Ct.2348]restatedthesocalled    exceptionfromAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523US224[118 q  S.Ct.1219],thatthereisafederalconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialandproofbeyonda Z  reasonabledoubtastoeveryfactthatincreasesadefendantssentenceoverthestatutory C maximum.,|(#(# 0  ThoughCaliforniaagreesthatApprendiappliestocurrentconductenhancements,such N asgangenhancementallegations(Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316),ithas 7 restedtherighttoajurytrialregardingthefactofapriorconvictiononstatutorylaw.   (Peoplev.Epps(2001)25Cal.4th19,32.)UnderPenalCodesection1025,thereisno   righttoajurydeterminationwhether(a)thepriorconvictionconstituteda seriousor   violentfelony(Peoplev.Kelii(1999)21cal.4th452);or(b)whetherthedefendantis  thepersonwhoactuallysufferedthepriorconviction.(Peoplev.McGee(2006)38 t Cal.4th682[ therehasbeenaclearexpressionoflegislativeintentthatajuryplayavery ] limitedroleindeterminingprioroffenseallegationsandthatacourt,notajury,examine F recordsofpriorconvictionstodeterminewhethertheconvictionallegedqualifiesasa / convictionundertheapplicablesentence-enhancementprovision; althoughthe h decisioninApprendinotedthattensionexistedbetweentherationaleofitsdecisionand  Q theestablishedrulepermittingacourt,ratherthanajury,todeterminesentence  : enhancementsthatarebaseduponadefendantspriorconvictions,thehighcourtinthat !#  decisiondidnotpurporttooverrulethepriorcaselawpertainingtorecidivistsentencing " ! provisions].)Foracompletediscussionofthisruleanditsimpactonpriorconviction #" trials,see ApprendiinCalifornia(JonathanSoglin,StaffAttorney).$#(#(#  "g;"  g;0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  TrialProcedure g;D݌`&!%` (#` (# Ќ  0  Trialonthepriorconvictionsmaybebifurcatedatthedefendants(Peoplev.Calderon 3(#' (1994)9Cal.4th69)ortheprosecutorsrequest(Peoplev.Cline(1998)60_Cal.App_.4th )l$( 1327).*U%)(#(# 0  Onecourthasrecognizedthepotentialforaconflictofinterestarisingfromthecurrent +''+ attorneyhavingrepresentedthedefendantinapriorproceedingwheretheconviction ,(, arisingfromthatproceedingwasbeingintroducedundersubdivision(b)ofEvidence  Codesection1101.(Peoplev.Dancer(1996)45_Cal.App_.4th1677,1686,overruledon  anotherpointinPeoplev.Hammon(1997)15Cal.4th1117.)InDancer,thetrialcourt  appointedseparatecounseltoadvisethedefendantontheissue.TheSanDiegoBar k Assn.CommitteeonLegalEthics,Opn.No.19951providesthatcounselmustatleast T advisedefendantofthepotentialconflict.= (#(#  "g;"  g;0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  Proofofpriorsg;݌ _` (#` (# Ќ  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Generally h݌ 2  (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Generally,priorconvictionsareestablishedthroughintroductionoftherecordof   conviction(chargingdocument,transcriptofplea,abstractofjudgment),aPenal   Codesection969b prisonpacketandanysupplementarymaterialtheprosecutor   believesisnecessarytoestablishthefactsoftheoffense(preliminaryhearing p  transcripts,probationreports,etc.).Y ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Ifapriorconvictioncouldhavebeencommittedintwoways,onlyoneofwhich +{ wouldbeastrike,thecourtisobligatedtoselectthecrimewiththeleast d adjudicatedelements(unlessthereisevidenceintherecordthatthedefendants M conductqualifiedasastrike.)Peoplev.Watts(2005)131Cal.App.4th589.)6` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Therearetwofactorstodeterminewhetheradocumentofferedtoprovethata  priorisastrikeshouldbeadmitted:(1)isitpartoftherecordofconviction[not   yetdefined];and(2)doesitpassthe reliablereflectiontestofPeoplev.Reed  (1996)13Cal.4th217?(Peoplev.Houck(1998)66_Cal.App_.4th350.)s` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Uncertaintyaboutwhatevidenceacourtmayconsidertodetermine E retrospectivelythatapriorwasaseriousfelonymaycreateanunconstitutional .~ vaguenessissue.(See,Peoplev.Murphy(2001)25Cal.4th136,148149[posing g thequestion,butdecliningtoanswerit].) P` (#` (#  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Chargingdocument,minuteorders,abstractsofjudgment h)݌!"  (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(# Thedeterminationofwhetherapriorconvictionisa[strike]...isnotaffectedby #" thesentenceimposedunlessthesentenceautomatically,upontheinitial $# sentencing,convertsthefelonytoamisdemeanor.(667,subd.(d),para.(1).) w% $ Undersubdivision(b),paragraph(1)of17,anoffenseisanautomatic `&!% misdemeanorwhenthecourtimposessummaryprobation(ratherthanISS)to I'"& terminateuponcompletionofjailtime.(Peoplev.Glee(2000)82_Cal.App_.4th99; 2(#' Peoplev.Soto(1985)166_Cal.App_.3d770.))k$(` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Anabstractshowingthatdefendantpledto 245ASLT_GBI_/DLYWPNwas *=&* insufficienttosustainfindingthattheparticular ADWwasaseriousfelony. +&'+ (Peoplev.Rodriguez(1998)17Cal.4th253.Seealso,Peoplev.Banuelos(2005) ,(, 130_Cal.App_.4th601;Peoplev.Winters(2001)93_Cal.App_.4th273[ assaultwith  adeadlyweapon...addedto1192.7(c)(31)doesnotincorporateallviolations  of245!assaultbymeansofforcelikelyisstillnotaseriousfelony];Peoplev.  Encinas(1998)62_Cal.App_.4th489[abstractshowingaconvictionfor PC245(c) k Assault[on]Officer,aloneisinsufficientproofthattheassaultwasdonewitha T deadlyweaponorthatGBIwasinflicted]followingRodriguez.)= ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Anabstractofjudgment,showingdefendantgota3yearenhancementplusa  _ 969bpacketindicating 245...w/gbi(12022.7)issufficient.(Peoplev.Luna  H (2003)113_Cal.App_.4th395.Seealso,InreCruse(2003)110_Cal.App_.4th1495  1  [evenintheabsenceofa12022.7enhancementontheprior,ifthereisother    competentevidenceshowinginflictionofGBI,the strikefindingwillbe   upheld].) ` (#` (#  "h"  h80  0` (#(#2  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  PleaTranscripth8e݌n  (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Adefendants adoptiveadmissionatthetimehepledtothepriorestablished A thathisADWwasaseriousfelony.(Peoplev.Sohal(1997)53_Cal.App_.4th911. *z Butsee,Peoplev.Jones(1999)75_Cal.App_.4th616[defendantspleato bank c robberyinviolationof18USC2113(a)isnotenoughtoshowthatheadmitted L violatingthestatuteinawaywhichactuallyisabankrobberyinCalifornia].)5` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#AnindictmentandjudgmentinOregonrequiringdefendantpayrestitutiontotheft  victimsnamedintheindictmentwasadmissibletoproveasportation.(Peoplev.  Zangari(2001)89_Cal.App_.4th1436[ Areasonableinferencefromthisrecordis  thatpersonalpropertywascarriedawayfromtheburglarizedpremises.].)r` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Theprosecutorsfailuretoobtainanadmissionatthetimeofthepriorpleathat D theoffensewasaseriousfelonydoesnotstopacourtinasubsequentcasefrom -} revisitingthequestionanddeterminingthatthepriorwasinfactaseriousfelony. f (Peoplev.Leslie(1996)47_Cal.App_.4th198.Seealso,Peoplev.Thompson O (1997)59_Cal.App_.4th1271[noneedtopleadanewoffenseisaseriousfelony  8 under969f,unlessthatoffenseisgoingtobeenhancedwithpriorsinthat !!  case].)" !` (#` (#  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  4  .3  0 ` (#` (#  FormerTestimonyh݌$# (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#PoofofpriorsissubjecttotherulesofevidenceandtheConfrontationClause.If _&!% hearsaydocumentationisemployed,eachpieceofevidenceusedtoprovethe H'"&  extraelementofaprior(e.g.,personaluseofadeadlyweapon)hadtobe 1(#' admissibleundersomestatutoryexceptiontothehearsayrule.(Peoplev.Reed, )j$( supra,13Cal.4th217[PXtranscriptconstitutesformertestimonyunderPeoplev. *S%) Guerrero(1988)44Cal.3d343].)*<&*` (#` (#   +%'+ 0  0` (#(#ThoughaPXtranscriptmaybeadmissibletoprovethedefendantsconductwas   violentor serious,wherethepriorconvictionwasbyguiltyplea,aPX  transcriptisnotadmissibleto reliablyreflect[]theconductofwhichadefendant  wasconvicted,wherethedefendantwasconvictedinajurytrial.(Peoplev. k Houck,supra,66_Cal.App_.4th350[distinguishingReedonthebasisthatthat T caseinvolvedaconvictionaferguiltyplea].ComparePeoplev.Bartow(1996) =  46_Cal.App_.4th1573[thoughPXtranscriptwasproperlyadmitted,itwaserrorto & v denyintroductionoftheentirejurytrialtranscript].)Norisitadmissiblewhere  _ thePXwasheldundertheprocedurespermittedbyProp.115.(Peoplev.Best  H (1997)56_Cal.App_.4th41.) 1 ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Recently,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasissued2opinionsimpactingthis   area.InMX3MXXX3MCrawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.36,theU.S.SupremeCourt   heldthatwheneverthestateoffershearsayevidenceagainsttheaccusedthatis    testimonialinnature,theSixthAmendmentConfrontationClauserequiresa n  showingofunavailability;andaprioropportunityforcrossexamination W  (Crawford,supra,atpp.6869.)#X3MXXMX3MK#ԀAtleastoneCaliforniacourthasheldthat @ CrawforddoesnotbaradmissionofaPXtranscriptatatrialonpriorconviction )y allegationsonthegroundthatthedefendanthadanopportunitytocrossexamine b thedeclarantatthePX.(Peoplev.Gonzales(2005)131_Cal.App_.4th767.)The K otheropinionwasShepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.13,inwhichthe 4 Courtheldthatthenatureofthepriormayonlybeprovenbyreferenceto  chargingdocuments.` (#` (#  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  5  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ProbationReports h݌ (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Adefendantsstatementsinaprobationreportareadmissible,becausetheyclear [ twohearsayexceptions:partyadmissions,andofficialrecords.(Peoplev. D Monreal(1997)52_Cal.App_.4th670.)  -}` (#` (#  "h"  hB0  0` (#(#2  6  .3  0 ` (#` (#  AppellateOpinionshBo݌O (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#The recordofconvictionisnotlimitedtothetrialcourtrecord;anappellate !"  opinionmaybeincluded.(Peoplev.Woodell(1998)17Cal.4th448[appellate " ! opinionisan officialrecord].Butsee,Peoplev.Lewis(1996)44_Cal.App_.4th #" 845[DAssummaryofthefactsandajudgespostjudgmentdescriptionofa $# 1967Louisianacasewereinadmissible].)Theappellateopinionbeusedtoprove v% $ factsregardingthe basisoftheconviction,unlessthefactsaredescribedina _&!% wayastosuggesttheyweredisputedandunresolved.(Ibid.Butsee,Id.,dis. H'"& opn.ofMosk,J.,[hearsayexceptionunderEvidenceCodesection1280only 1(#' establishesthefactofconvictionandmaynotbeusedtoproveconduct].))j$(` (#` (#  "g;"  g;K0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  Retrialofpriorconvictionallegations g;Kx݌*<&*` (#` (#    +&'+ 0  Sofar,thereisnojeopardybartoretryinginadequatelyprovedpriors.(Mongev.   California(1998)524US721[118S.Ct.2246]affirmingPeoplev.Monge(1997)16  Cal.4th826[Scalia,Souter,Ginsburg,andStevens,dissenting].)Foranargumentthat  MongecannotsurviveApprendi,seeAlex_Ricciardulli_sStrikeZonearticleinthe k CaliforniaDefender,1stQuarter2001.Seealso,Peoplev.Seel(2004)34Cal.4th535 T [recognizingthatpostApprendi,retrialofatleastapremeditationallegationisbarred, =  butmaintainingadistinctionforpriorconvictionallegations].& v(#(# 0  NordotheDueProcessClauseorthelawofthecasedoctrineprecluderetrialofprior  H convictionallegationsfoundtohavebeeninsufficientlyproven.(Peoplev.Barragan  1  (2004)32Cal.4th236.)  (#(# 0  Noristhereajeopardybartoretryingthefactsaboutanewoffensewhichmakeita   seriousfelony.(Peoplev.Hernandez(1998)19Cal.4th835[Note:Werdegar,Mosk,   andevenBrownhavesomeproblemswiththisconstitutionalconclusionandwouldavoid n  reachingitsincethecasemightberesolvedonstatutorygrounds].Overruledonanother W  pointinPeoplev.Seel(2004)34Cal.4th535,550.)@(#(# 0  However,whereapriorconvictionhasbeendismissedunderPenalCodesection1385, b thedefendantmaynotbe retriedforitasanenhancingpriorconvictioninasubsequent K proceeding.(Peoplev.Barro(2001)93_Cal.App_.4th62.Contra,Peoplev.Blackburn 4 (1999)72_Cal.App_.4th1520[wherea personaluseallegationinthepriorproceeding  wasdismissedper1385!andevenwhereitwasfoundnottrue!theprosecutioncanstill  proveinthecurrentcasethatthepriorwasastrike,basedonthefactofpersonalgun  use].)(#(#  "a3"  a3 2  VI  .3  0    SENTENCING a3 1 ݌Z(#(# Ќ  Note:Adefendantwithstrikesmaybeeligiblefordeferredentryofjudgmentaswell.Three -} Strikesprohibits diversionundertheformerprogramwiththatname.However,thedeferred f entryofjudgmentprogramwhichreplaceddiversionin1997isdifferent.Adefendantina O deferredentryprogramhasnotyetbeenconvicted,soheisnotyetsubjecttosentencingunder  8 ThreeStrikesoranyotherprovision.ThelegislaturehasfailedtoamendedtheThreeStrikes !!  Lawtoprohibit_DEJ_.(Peoplev.Davis(2000)79_Cal.App_.4th251.) " ! "g;"  g;0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  TwoStrikesComputations(667(e)(1)) g;݌$#` (#` (# Ќ  0  Whenthebasetermisadeterminateterm,itisdoubled.However,thetrialcourthas _&!% discretionundersection1170tochoosetheupper,middle,orlowertermbeforedoubling H'"& it.(Peoplev.Keelen(1998)62Cal.App.4th813,819,fn.6.)Thebasetermand 1(#' subordinateterms(1/3themiddleterm)aredoubled,butnotenhancements.(Peoplev. )j$( Nguyen(1999)21Cal.4th197;Peoplev.Hardy(1999)73Cal.App.4th1429,1433; *S%) Peoplev.Dominguez(1995)38Cal.App.4th410.)*<&*(#(#   +%'+ 0  Whenthecurrentoffensecarriesanindeterminateterm,onelifetermisimposedwitha   doubledminimumperiodofconfinementforparoleeligibility.Fora straightlife  sentence,the7yearminimumprovidedbysection3046isdoubled.Wheresomeother  lawprovidesforalongerminimumthatminimumisdoubled.(Peoplev.Jefferson k (1999)21Cal.4th86.)Doublingtheminimumtermdoesnotviolateanyproscription T againstmodifyingtheBriggsInitiative,section190.(See,Peoplev.Ruiz(1996)44 =  _Cal.App_.4th1653,1661.)Thereappearstobealongstandingandunresolvedspliton & v whetheranLWOPtermcanbedoubled.(See,Peoplev.Hardy(1999)73_Cal.App_.4th  _ 1429[SecondDistrict,Division2holdingitcan];Peoplev.Smithson(2000)79  H _Cal.App_.4th480[ThirdDistrictholdingitcannot].) 1 (#(# "g;"  g;0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  ThreeStrikesComputations(667(e)(2)(A)) g;8݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  0  Athirdstrikergetsanindeterminateterm,withtheminimumcalculatedasthelongestof:   Ѐ (_i_)Threetimesthetermotherwiseprovidedaspunishmentforeachcurrentfelony o  conviction...(ii)25years,or(iii)Thetermdeterminedbythecourtpursuanttosection X  1170fortheunderlyingconviction,includinganyenhancementapplicableunder A ...section1170...oranyperiodprescribedbysection190or3046.(667(e)(2)(A).)*z(#(# 0  Underoption(_i_),wherethecurrentoffensecarriesadeterminateterm,thetrialcourt L retainsitssection1170discretiontochoosetheupper,middle,orlowertermbefore 5 tripling.(Peoplev.Keelen(1998)62Cal.App.4th813.)Asinsecondstrikesentences,  enhancementsareexcludedfromthetriplingcalculus.(Peoplev.Acosta(2002)29  Cal.4th105.)(#(# 0  Wherethecurrentoffensecarriesanindeterminateterm,underoption(_i_),thecourttriples r theminimummandatoryparoleeligibilityterm.(Peoplev.Acosta(2002)29Cal.4th [ 105;Peoplev.Mendoza(2000)78Cal.App.4th918.)D(#(#  "g;"  g;0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  ConductEnhancementsandsentencingunderThreeStrikes g;݌f` (#` (# Ќ  0  Conductenhancementsattachedtoconsecutivelifesentencesunderoption(iii)ofthe  9 ThreeStrikeslawareservedatfullstrength.Theyarenotsubjecttothe1/3ruleof !"  1170.1,asareenhancementsonsubordinatedeterminateterms.(Peoplev.Lyons(1999) " ! 72Cal.App.4th1224.Seealso,Peoplev.Felix(2000)22Cal.4th651[holdinginanon #" ThreeStrikescasethatlifeterms!both straightlifeand 25life!are indeterminate $# terms,notsubjecttoanyoftheDSLsentencingrules].)v% $(#(#  "g;"  g;"0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  ApplicationofThreeStrikesandotherprovisionsaggravatingorenhancing H'"& thesentence g;""݌2(#'` (#` (# Ќ  0  ThreeStrikesmaybesupersededbyanothersentencingschemewhichresultsinamore *U%) severepenalty.(Peoplev.Williams(1995)40Cal.App.4th446[capitalmurder].)Onthe *>&* otherhand,ThreeStrikessupersedesanysentencingstatutewhichwouldresultinalesser +''+ penalty.(Peoplev.Espinoza(1997)58Cal.App.4th248[ThreeStrikessupersedes ,(, 664,thegeneralattemptsstatute,whenthenewoffenseisanattempt].)Further,Three  Strikesisappliedinconjunctionwithanyothersentencingschemewhichwouldnot  aloneproduceaslongasentence.(Peoplev.Acosta(2002)29Cal.4th105,112128  [termunder667.61( OneStrikesexoffenderprovisions)shouldbecalculatedand k thentripled,ifhehastwo strikes];Peoplev.Ervin(1996)50_Cal.App_.4th259[or T doubledifonlyoneprior strike].)= (#(#  "g;"  g;j(0  2  E  .3  0` (#(#  ApplicationofThreeStrikesandotherrecidivistprovisions g;j((݌ _` (#` (# Ќ  0  Aprior strikecanalsobeusedtoenhanceaThreeStrikessentencebyanadditional5  2  yearsundersubdivision(a)of667.(Peoplev.Dotson(1997)16Cal.4th547.)Infact,    sinceprosecutorsandjudgesoftenoverlookthis,itisoftenapotentialadverse   consequenceofpursuinganappeal,becauseanunauthorizedsentencecanbecorrectedat   anytime.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.Ayon(1996)46_Cal.App_.4th385,395396[adding   recidivistenhancement];Peoplev.Ingram(1995)40_Cal.App_.4th1397,14111412 o  [same].)Further,wherethecurrentjudgmentinvolvesmultiple25lifesentencesfor3rd X  strikeoffenses,the5yearenhancementisimposedoneachnewsentence,unlikeits A singleimpositionindeterminatetermsentences.(Peoplev.Williams(2004)34Cal.4th *z 397,404405.)c(#(# 0  667.71(habitualsexoffenderlaw)andThreeStrikesoperatecumulativelyaswell. 5 (Peoplev.Murphy(2001)25Cal.4th136.)Evenwherethedefendantqualifiesfor  treatmentunderthe OneStrikesexoffenderprovisionsof667.61,basedonaprior  convictionwhichisalsoastrikeunder667(b)(_i_),thatsamepriorcanbeusedtotrigger  asentenceunderboththeOneStrikeandtheThreeStrikeslaws.Despitelanguagein  667.61(f)thatappearstostatethatonly surpluspriors!priorsnotneededtoinvokea r section667.61sentence!canbeusedforsomeothersentencingpurpose,suchasThree [ Strikes,theSupremeCourthasheldthatsection667.61(f)doesnotbarthisdualuse. D (Peoplev.Acosta(2002)29Cal.4th105,128134.)-}(#(#  "g;"  g;10  2  F  .3  0` (#(#  OtherDualUseIssues g;12݌O` (#` (# Ќ  0  Wherethestrikepriorisanelementofthenewoffense(e.g.,290,4532or12021), !"  theremaystillbeanargumentagainstitsdualuse.(Peoplev.Edwards(1976)18Cal.3d " ! 796andPeoplev.Wilks(1978)21Cal.3d460.See,Peoplev.Baird(1995)12Cal.4th #" 126[expresslydecliningtooverruleEdwardsandWilks];andPeoplev.Coronado(1995) $# 12Cal.4th145[same].)However,atleastinthesituationwherethecurrentoffenseisa v% $ failuretoregister,theSupremeCourthasrejectedthisargument.(Peoplev.Garcia _&!% (2001)25Cal.4th744[ theplainandunambiguouslanguageoftheThreeStrikeslaw H'"& disclosesanintenttoimposetheenhanced,doubledsentence,despiteapossibledual 1(#' useofdefendantspriorconviction].))j$((#(# 0  Wherethepriorisnotanelement,butratherafactraisingamisdemeanortoafelony *<&* (e.g.666),theEdwardsdualusebarhasbeenheldinapplicable.(Peoplev.Darwin +%'+ (1993)12Cal.App.4th1101;seealso,Peoplev.WhiteEagle(1996)48Cal.App.4th ,(, 1511;Peoplev.Coronado(1995)12Cal.4th145[relyingonlegislativeintentandnot  mentioningEdwards,toholddualuseofafelonyboosterprior,underVC23175and  667.5(prisonprior)wasproper].But,see,Riggsv.California(1999)525US114[199  S.Ct.890][denialcert.inwhichfoursupremecourtjusticesexpressedconcernsabout k punishingpettywithapriorwithalifesentence];Durdenv.California(2001)531US T 1184[121S.Ct.1183],dissentfromdenialofcertiorari.)= (#(# 0  Asinglestrikepriormaybeusedtodoubleboththebasetermandanysubordinateterm.  _ (Peoplev.McKee(1995)36_Cal.App_.4th540.)Thisdoubleuseofthestrikeisnotan  H  enhancement.(Compare,Peoplev.Tassell(1984)36Cal.3d77.)Evenifthedoubling  1  werean enhancement,thestatutorylanguage notwithstandinganyotherlaw    (667(c))abrogatesTassell.(Seealso,Peoplev.Hill(1995)37_Cal.App_.4th220   [ notwithstandinglanguageabrogatesformerrule425(b)asabartodoublingboth   terms];Peoplev.Williams(2004)34Cal.4th397[Tasselldoesnotbarimpositionof   multipleindeterminatetermsundertheThreeStrikesLaw];Peoplev.Byrd(2001)89 n  _Cal.App_.4th1373[same].)W (#(# 0  Neitherstatutenorruleprohibitsrelyingonthesamepriorconvictionbothtoinvokean )y alternativesentencingschemeandimposeanupperterm.(Peoplev.McClain(1997)59 b _Cal.App_.4th696[nobartousingthefactofthesamepriortosentenceundertheThree K StrikesLawandtoimposetheuppertermasthebaseterm].)4(#(#  "g;"  g;@0  2  G  .3  0` (#(#  Consecutivevs.concurrenttermsunderThreeStrikes g;@A݌` (#` (# Ќ  "h"  hA0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Mandatory hAB݌ (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(# Ifthereisacurrentconvictionformorethanonefelonycountnotcommittedon \ thesameoccasion,andnotarisingfromthesamesetofoperativefacts,thecourt E shallsentencethedefendantconsecutivelyoneachcountpursuanttosubdivision .~ (e).(Pen.Code667(c)(6).)g` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Further,wheretwoormoreofthenewoffensesare serious(Pen.Code  9 1192.7(c))or violent(Pen.Code667.5(c))felonies,section667(c)(7)requires !"  thetermstobenotonlyconsecutivetoeachother,butalso toanyother " ! convictionforwhichthedefendantmaybeconsecutivelysentencedinthemanner #" prescribedbylaw.(Peoplev.Hendrix(1997)16Cal.4th508,514.)$#` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Notepotentialadverseconsequence:Peoplev.Durant(1999)68 _&!% _Cal.App_.4th1393reversedatrialcourtsdiscretionaryimpositionofconcurrent H'"& sentencesas unauthorizedwheretheCourtofAppealconcludedtheoffenses 1(#' didnotarisefromthesamesetofoperativefacts.)j$(` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#EvenwherestrikesaredismissedastosomecountsunderGarcia(seeH, *<&* below),themandatoryconsecutiverulemaystillapplyinagivencase.(People +%'+ v.Casper(2004)33Cal.4th38.),(,` (#` (# Ї0  0` (#(#Further,ifdefendantisalreadyservingatermforsomeotherfelony,thecurrently  imposedsentenceundertheThreeStrikesLawmustbeimposedconsecutively,  andwherethesentenceisanaggregatedeterminateterm,thecourtmustre  considerthestructureoftheentiresentenceundersection1170.1.(Peoplev. k Riggs(2001)86_Cal.App_.4th1126;Pen.Code667(c)(8);Id.,667(e)(2)(B). T Compare,Peoplev.Rosbury(1997)15Cal.4th206[defendantonprobationwith =  impositionofsentencesuspendedisnotalreadyservingasentenceforpurposes & v ofsection667(c)(8)]andPeoplev.Davis(1996)48_Cal.App_.4th1105[defendant  _ onparolefromCRCatthetimeaThreeStrikessentenceisimposedwas serving  H asentenceforpurposesofsection667(c)(8)].) 1 ` (#` (#  "h"  hN0  0` (#(#2  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Discretionary hN3N݌  (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Conversely,ifthetwonewcountsarecommittedonthe sameoccasionor    arisefromthesamesetofoperativefacts,regardlessofwhethertheyare o   serious, violent,ornot,thenconcurrentsentencingiswithinthecourts X  discretion.(Peoplev.Deloza(1998)18Cal.4th585;Peoplev.Hendrix(1997)16 A Cal.4th508.)*z` (#` (# 0  0` (#(# [A]tleastwhere...thethreestrikeslawdoesnotmandateconsecutive L sentencing,section654[andNeal,requiringstayingofmultiplepunishmentfor 5 actscommittedpursuanttoasingleobjective]appliestosentencingunderthe  threestrikeslaw.(Peoplev.Danowski(1999)74_Cal.App_.4th815.)` (#` (#  "h"  hR0  0` (#(#2  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Sameoccasionorsetofoperativefacts hRS݌ (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Thedeterminationofwhethertheoffensesoccurredonthe sameoccasionor \  arisefromthesamesetofoperativefacts,isprocedurallyandsubstantively E distinctfromananalysisunderPenalCodesection654andthe singleobjective .~ standardofNealv.California(1960)55Cal.2d11.Itisalsodistinctfromthe g definitionof sameoccasioninsections667.6(d)and186.22.(Peoplev.Deloza  P (1998)18Cal.4th585.) 9` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Wheretheoffenseswere socloselyrelatedintimeandspace,andcommitted " ! againstthesamegroupofvictims,...thesefactorsalonecompelustoconclude #" theyoccurredonthesameoccasion.(Peoplev.Deloza,supra,18Cal.4thatp. $# 599.)However,whereadefendantshopliftedfromastore,ranacrossthestreet, v% $ cutintoaresidentialbackyardandassaultedthehomeowner,theSupremeCourt _&!% heldtheoffenseswerenotcommittedonthesameoccasion!eventhoughthey H'"& wereafewminutesandacoupleofblocksapart!becausetheyinvolveddifferent 1(#' victims.(Peoplev.Lawrence(2000)24Cal.4th219 .)Further,theCourthas )j$( suggestedthatinorderfortwooffensestoarisefromthesamesetofoperative *S%) facts,theymustshare commonactsorcriminalconductthatservestoestablish *<&* theelementsofthe...offenses.(Id.atp.233.SeealsoPeoplev.Durant +%'+ (1999)68_Cal.App_.4th1393[ samesetofoperativefactsisaveryrestrictivetest; ,(, suggestingwithoutquiteholdingthatifonecrimeislegallycompletebeforethe  secondoneisbegun,theydonotarisefromthe samesetofoperativefacts];  Peoplev.Jenkins(2001)86_Cal.App_.4th699[agreeingwithDurant,eventhough  twoassaultsoccurredunderinterrelatedcircumstancesandverycloseintime,the k majorityemphasizedthefactthatthefirstassaultwascompletedbeforethe T secondbegan,andthatdefendanthadtimetoreflect;dissent];Peoplev.Jones =  (1998)67_Cal.App_.4th724[witnessintimidation,thoughcommittedin & v furtheranceofthesameobjectiveasburglary,occurredlaterintime!andthus  _ requiredamandatoryconsecutivesentence].) H` (#` (#  "h"  hv_0  0` (#(#2  4  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Calculatingmultiple3rdstriketermsimposedconsecutively hv__݌   (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Multiple3rdstriketermsimposedconsecutivelyaggregatetheminimum   mandatoryparoleeligibilityterm(i.e.,50or75tolife).(See,Peoplev.Jenkins   (1995)10Cal.4th234[whichactuallyconstrued667.7];Peoplev.Byrd(2001) o  89_Cal.App_.4th1373[followingJenkins].)X ` (#` (# "g;"  g;kb0  2  H  .3  0` (#(#  SentencingCreditsLimitations g;kbb݌*z` (#` (# Ќ  0  ThetotalamountofcreditsawardedpursuanttoArticle2.5(commencingwithsection M 2930)...shallnotexceedonefifthofthetotaltermofimprisonmentandshallnotaccrue 6 untilthedefendantisphysicallyplacedinstateprison.(667(c)(5).)Thislimitation  appliestothetotalaggregatedeterminateterm.(Peoplev.Brady(1995)34_Cal.App_.4th  65.)However,whereadeterminatetermisimposedafterarevocationofprobationfora  pre1994offense,creditsarecalculatedwithoutthe20%limitation.(Peoplev.Williams  (1996)49_Cal.App_.4th1641.)s(#(# 0  However,thislimitationdoesnotapplytoprejudgmentcredits,whicharestillgoverned E by2900.5,4019andSage.(Peoplev.Thomas(1999)21Cal.4th1122;Peoplev.Hill .~ (1995)37_Cal.App_.4th220;Peoplev.Caceres(1997)52_Cal.App_.4th106.)g(#(# 0  Thecourtneednotadvisedefendantofthis collateralconsequenceofapleatoastrike  9 offenseunderInreTahl(1969)1Cal.3d122.(Peoplev.Barella(1999)20Cal.4th261.) @" !" (#(# 0  Notethatmorerestrictivecreditrulessupersedeapplicationofthe20%limitationof #" section667(c)(5).(Peoplev.Jenkins(1995)10Cal.4th234[190restrictionsapplicable $# tomurderdefendantsentencedundersection667.7];Peoplev.Sylvester(1997)58 v% $ Cal.4th1493[2933.115%limitationfornewviolentfelonies];Peoplev.Caceres _&!% (1997)52_Cal.App_.4th106[same].Seealso,Peoplev.Henson(1997)57_Cal.App_.4th H'"& 1380[rejectingargumentthatanythirdstrikeoffenseisaviolentfelony].)1(#'(#(# 0  Thedefendantisnotentitledtoanycreditagainsta25lifeterm.However,hemayearn *S%) creditsagainstadeterminatetermimposedconsecutivelytothatlifeterm.(InreCervera *<&* (2001)24Cal.4th1073.) +%'+(#(# "a3"  a3tm2  VII  .3  0    JUDICIALPOWERTOSTAY,STRIKEORDISMISSSTRIKEPRIORS  (667(f)(2)) a3tmm݌(#(# Ќ  "g;"  g;n0  2  A  .3  0` (#(#  Discretiontostrikeprior 0` (#` (#g;nn݌m(#(# Ќ  0  Atrialcourtcanstrikeaprior strikeundersection1385.Reasonsforthedecisionmust @  bestatedintheminutes.(Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)(1996)13Cal.4th497.See ) y also,Peoplev.Garcia(1999)20Cal.4th490[thecourtretainsdiscretiontostrikesome  b orallofthepriors,andthecourtcandismissstrikesallegationsastosomebutnotall  K counts];Peoplev.Bradley(1998)64_Cal.App_.4th386[section667(e)(2)(B),asconstrued  4  inDotsonandHendrix,doesnotabrogatethediscretiontostrikeanenhancement    allegationthecourtmayotherwisestrikeundersection1385!here,thecourtmaystrike   termforprisonprior].) (#(# 0  Note:inacasedepublishedupongrantofreviewonanotherissue,DivisionOneofthe q  FourthDistrictheldthatfailuretostatereasonsontherecordmakesthesentence Z  unauthorized,regardlessofitsmerits,permittingthecasetobesentbackforastatement C ofreasons!withnoguaranteethatthetrialcourtwillreachthesamedecision.(People ,| v.Hammer(January9,2002)D037349.)e(#(# 0  DefendantsdonothaveaSixthAmendmentrighttoajurydeterminationwhetherastrike 7 shouldbedismissedunderBlakelyorApprendi.(Peoplev.Murphy(2004)124   _Cal.App_.4th859;Peoplev.Urbano(2005)128Cal.App.4th396.) x  (#(# "g;"  g;v0  2  B  .3  0` (#(#  Standing,AppealabilityandStandardofReview g;vv݌` (#` (# Ќ  0     Defendantcannotmakeamotiontostrikeaprior,buthecanaskthetrialcourtto ^ exerciseitsdiscretion.Further,adefendantmayappealatrialcourtsrefusalorfailureto G exercisediscretionundersection1385,andhecanappealanabuseofthatdiscretion. 0  Weseenovaliddistinctionbetweenafailuretoexercisediscretion,andafailureto i exercisediscretioninalawfulmanner.(Peoplev.Carmony(2004)33Cal.4th367;  R Peoplev.Gillispie(1997)60_Cal.App_.4th429.) ;(#(# "g;"  g;z0  2  C  .3  0` (#(#  Establishinganabuseofdiscretion g;zz݌" !` (#` (# Ќ  0    (#(# 0  Therearetwobroadcategorieswhereajudgeabuseshisdiscretioninrefusingtodismiss $# strikes:proceduralandsubstantive.Proceduralabuseofdiscretionoccurswhenacourtis y% $ notawareofitsdiscretiontodismissorwherethecourtconsideredimpermissiblefactors b&!% indecliningtodismiss.Substantiveabusehappenswhenacourtsrefusaltodismiss K'"& producesanarbitrary,capriciousorpatentlyabsurdresultunderthespecificfactsofa 4(#' particularcase.(Peoplev.Carmony(2004)33Cal.4th367[findingnoabuseunder )m$( eithercategory].Seealso,Peoplev.Philpot(2004)122_Cal.App_.4th893[noabuseof *V%) discretionwherecourtdeniedmotiontodismissstrikesandsentencetolessthan25life *?&* forautotheft].)+('+(#(#  ,(,  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  1  .3  0 ` (#` (#  Silentrecords h݌ (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Onasilentrecord,reversalandremandareonlyrequiredwheretherecord  affirmativelydemonstratesthatthetrialjudgewasunawareofhisdiscretionand  l wouldhaveexerciseddiscretionundersection1385tostrikethepriorconviction U ifitbelievedithadsuchdiscretion.(Peoplev.Fuhrman(1997)16Cal.4th >  930.)However,inPeoplev.Rodriguez(1998)17Cal.4th253,theSupreme ' w Courtheldthatonarecordwhichaffirmativelyshowedonlythatthejudge  ` thoughthehadnopowertostrike,reversalwasrequired,evenintheabsenceof  I anaffirmativeshowingthejudgewouldhaveexercisedhisdiscretioninthe  2  defendantsfavor.(Seealso,Peoplev.Vong(1997)58_Cal.App_.4th1063[ifthe    recordaffirmativelyshowsthatthetrialcourtdidntknowithadthepowerto   strike,defendantisentitledtoaremandwithoutanyfurthershowingthatheis   likelytogetashortersentence].) ` (#` (#  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  2  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheWilliamsstandard h߅݌X  (# (# Ќ  0  0` (#(# [T]helanguageof[PenalCodesection1385(a)],infurtheranceofjustice, +{ requiresconsiderationbothoftheconstitutionalrightsofthedefendant,andthe d interestsofsocietyrepresentedbythePeople,indeterminingwhetherthere M shouldbeadismissal....Attheveryleast,thereasonfordismissalmustbethat 6 whichwouldmotivateareasonablejudge....Courtshaverecognizedthat  society,representedbythePeople,hasalegitimateinterestinthefairprosecution  ofcrimesproperlyalleged....[A]dismissalwhicharbitrarilycutsthoserights  withoutashowingofdetrimenttothedefendantisanabuseofdiscretion.  (Peoplev.Williams(1997)17Cal.4th148,159,quotingRomero.)s` (#` (# 0  0` (#(# [I]nrulingwhethertostrikeorvacateapriorseriousand/orviolentfelony E convictionallegationorfindingundertheThreeStrikeslaw,onitsownmotion, .~ infurtheranceofjusticepursuanttoPenalCodesection1385(a),orinreviewing g sucharuling,thecourtinquestionmustconsiderwhether,inlightofthenature  P andcircumstancesofhispresentfeloniesandpriorseriousand/orviolentfelony  9 convictions,andtheparticularsofhisbackground,character,andprospects,the !"  defendantmaybedeemedoutsidethescheme'sspirit,inwholeorinpart,and " ! henceshouldbetreatedasthoughhehadnotpreviouslybeenconvictedofoneor #" moreseriousand/orviolentfelonies.(Peoplev.Williams(1997)17Cal.4th148, $# 161,emphasisadded.)v% $` (#` (#  "h"  h0  0` (#(#2  3  .3  0 ` (#` (#  ApplicationoftheWilliamsstandardh݌H'"& (# (# Ќ  "Wir"  Wir0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2  a  .3  0 (# (#  PriornotstrickenorstrikingreversedWirЏ݌)k$((#(# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Whereattheconclusionofthepreliminaryhearingonaprior,themagistrate *>&* refusedtoholdthedefendanttoanswer,butthedefendantlaterpledguiltytothe +''+ prior,thatissufficienttoestablishhisguiltofit.Themagistratesrulingstanding ,(, alonewasinsufficienttotakedefendant outsidethespiritoftheThreeStrikes  scheme.(Peoplev.Wallace(2004)33Cal.4th738.)` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Thoughdefendantsnewoffensewasnothingworsethansellingbunkcocaine, k andmostofhispriorsweredrugandtheftmisdemeanors,itwasanabuseof T discretiontofindhimoutsidethespiritoftheThreeStrikeslawontheground =  thathissingle strike!aknifeassault!was outofcharacter.(Peoplev. & v Strong(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th328.) _` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Thetrialcourtsrefusaltostrikedefendantspriorseriousfelonyconvictionsin  1  theinterestsofjusticewasnotanabuseofdiscretiongiventhenatureand    circumstancesofthecurrentoffense.(Peoplev.Poslof(2005)126_Cal.App_.4th   92.) ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Defendantsage,diabeticconditionandlengthofsentenceintheabsenceofthe n  priorwerenotgoodenoughreasonstojustifystrikingaprior.(Peoplev.Gaston W  (1999)74_Cal.App_.4th310.Compare,Peoplev.Garcia(1999)20Cal.4th490 @ [lengthofsentencewithoutthepriorsuchthatdefendantwouldnolongerbea )y dangertosocietyisrelevantfactor].)b` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#InapreWilliamscase,theCourtofAppealreversedthestrikingofaprior, 4 becausethesolearticulatedgroundwastheageoftheprior.However,thetrial  courtdidnotconsiderthatthedefendanthadnotbeen crimefreesincethat  priorconviction.(Peoplev.Humphrey(1997)58_Cal.App_.4th809.)` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Note:Noabuseofdiscretioninrefusingtostrikeacurrentcountofconviction, q whichwouldbestayedinanyeventundersection654,becauseofthepossibility Z thatsomedayanothercourtwoulduseitasaseparatestrike.(Peoplev.Ortega C (2000)84_Cal.App_.4th659.),|` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#Note:Thecourtcannotreleaseaconvicteddefendant,whosepriorshavebeen N foundtrue,on SupervisedORpriortosentencing,toseehowhedoesinadrug  7 programandthusgatherinformationwhetherhemightbeoutsidethespiritofthe !   ThreeStrikeslaw.󀀀(Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Roam)(1998)69_Cal.App_.4th " ! 1220.)#"` (#` (#  "Wir"  Wir0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2  b  .3  0 (# (#  PriorstrickenordenialreversedWir݌t% $(#(# Ќ  0  0` (#(#Itwasanabuseofdiscretiontorefusetostrikeapriorandimpose25tolife G'"& sentencefora technicalviolationofPCsection290,thesexoffender 0(#' registrationstatute.Thetrialcourtsinferencesaboutdefendantsconductwere )i$( notsupportedbysubstantialevidence.(Peoplev.Cluff(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th *R%) 991.Butsee,Peoplev.Carmony(2004)33Cal.4th367[upholdinga25tolife *;&* sentenceforamanwhofailedtoreregisteronhisbirthday,althoughhehadre +$'+ registereduponmoving,amonthbefore].), (,` (#` (# Ї0  0` (#(#InacasepredatingWilliams,theCourtofAppealupheldthetrialcourtsstriking  ofpriorsasaproperexerciseofdiscretion.(Peoplev.Bishop(1997)56  _Cal.App_.4th1245.)` (#` (#  "g;"  g;0  2  D  .3  0` (#(#  RemandProcedure g;݌T` (#` (# Ќ  0  Basedonsection1260(authorizingremands forsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybejust ' w underthecircumstances),aremandforaRomerohearingentitlesthedefendantto  ` appearinpersonandwithcounsel.(Peoplev.Rodriguez(1998)17Cal.4th253.See  I also,InreCortez(1971)6Cal.3d78[constitutionalright].) 2 (#(#  "a3"  a32  VIII  .3  0    JUDICIALDISCRETIONTOREDUCETRIGGERINGOFFENSETOA   MISDEMEANOR(17(b)) a3ݦ݌ (#(# Ќ  Whenthenewoffenseisawobbler,thetrialcourtretainsdiscretiontoreduceittoa q  misdemeanorundersection17(b)(1)or(3)notwithstandingtheThreeStrikesLaw.(Peoplev. Z  SuperiorCourt(Alvarez)(1996)14Cal.4th968.)Thejudgemusttakeadefendantspriorsinto C consideration.However,thatfactcannotbe_dispositive_,andreviewofanexerciseofdiscretion ,| undersection17isverydeferential.(Ibid.)