People v. Torrence CA3

Filed 6/26/25 P. v. Torrence CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100611

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F02170)

v.

NATHAN LAMONT TORRENCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Nathan Lamont Torrence appeals from his February 2024 resentencing for first degree robbery and false imprisonment. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to strike his prior strike conviction. We disagree and affirm. Statutory references are to the Penal Code. BACKGROUND In March 2014, defendant pled no contest to two counts of first degree robbery (§ 211) and two counts of false imprisonment (§ 236). He admitted several firearm enhancements (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)),

1

a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)- (i), 1170.12 ). He moved to strike his prior strike conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). The court denied defendant’s Romero motion and sentenced him to 21 years eight months in state prison. The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation later notified the trial court that defendant was eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. The trial court appointed counsel and set the matter for a full resentencing hearing. Prior to the resentencing hearing, defendant again moved to strike his prior strike conviction under Romero. In support of his motion, defendant argued he had engaged in “significant courses of study while incarcerated.” Also while incarcerated, he “worked on his sobriety” and was diagnosed with “multiple mental illness[es]” that were the “root of his issues in the justice system.” Striking his prior strike conviction was, therefore, in the interest of justice. The People, on the other hand, argued that dismissing any of the prior convictions would “endanger public safety.” At 36 years old, defendant was “in his physical prime, fully capable of committing physically violent acts with force, just as he had done his whole life before getting caught for his committing offense.” Defendant’s history of violent crimes, “coupled with the almost unthinkable facts underlying the committing offenses,” were sufficient to deny his request. At the resentencing hearing, the People described defendant’s criminal history as one that “sort of melts together.” Defendant was on parole when he committed the prior strike offense, and he was on parole for his prior strike offense when he committed the current offense. Defendant’s crimes were also often rooted in traumatizing other people. After hearing from both parties, the trial court ruled on defendant’s Romero motion: “I mean these – it was a particularly violent crime. I mean, reprehensible[] conduct; a shotgun in the mouth of a 55-year-old lady in her home, stealing items that