P. v. Salazar CA2/6

Filed 7/18/13 P. v. Salazar CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B246076 (Super. Ct. No. 2012000428) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County) v. NORMAN THOMAS SALAZAR, Defendant and Appellant.

Norman Thomas Salazar appeals from a 32-month state prison sentence entered after he pled guilty to felony evading an officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2., subd. (a)), admitted a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c)(1) & (e)(1); 1170.12, subds. (a)(1) & (c)(1)),1 and admitted two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a Romero motion (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) to strike his prior strike conviction for attempted carjacking. (§§ 664/215, subd. (a).) We affirm. Facts and Procedural History On January 5, 2012, a Ventura police officer saw appellant drive erratically at a high rate of speed through a residential neighborhood. The officer activated his lights and siren and tried to stop the vehicle, but appellant failed to yield. Appellant drove through red lights and stop signs, reaching speeds up to 85 to 90 miles per hour on the surface streets and Highway 101. When appellant reached Camarillo, the officer rammed appellant's vehicle, causing the vehicle to spin out and stop. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

Appellant was arrested for felony evading an officer with willful disregard. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) A records check revealed that appellant had an outstanding warrant, was on parole, and was driving with a license that had been suspended due to a prior driving under the influence related offense. After appellant was arraigned, the trial court found appellant not competent to stand trial and suspended criminal proceedings. (§ 1368.) On June 14, 2012, Patton State Hospital reported that appellant was feigning mental illness. Appellant was found competent to stand trial and brought a Romero motion to strike his 2001 conviction for attempted carjacking. Denying the motion, the trial court found: "There's a significant criminal history. . . including a carjacking offense in [appellant's] past a little over ten years ago. [Appellant] has not maintained a law-abiding [life] since the commission of that offense, and the Court views what occurred in this matter as also a public safety threat and for those reasons . . . find[s] him within the scope of the [Three Strikes] law." Appellant entered a change of plea and admitted the prior strike and prior prison term enhancements. The trial court sentenced him to 16 months prison for felony evading an officer with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), doubled the sentence based on the prior strike conviction, and struck the prior prison term enhancements. Discussion Section 1385, subdivision (a) vests a trial court with the discretion to strike a prior serious or violent felony conviction "in furtherance of justice . . . ." (Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 530.) In ruling on a Romero motion, the trial court considers the nature and circumstances of the present felony offense, defendant's prior serious or violent felony convictions, and defendant's background, character and prospects. (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) Only under extraordinary circumstances will a career criminal fall outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 378.)