People v. Munoz CA4/1

Filed 7/22/25 P. v. Munoz CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083658

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE419656)

EDDIE MUNOZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel G. Lamborn, Judge. Affirmed. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting, and Joshua Trinh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Eddie Munoz was convicted on ten counts stemming from two separate domestic violence incidents involving his girlfriend Marcella R. As relevant here, a jury convicted him of assault by means likely to produce great bodily

injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 4); false imprisonment by violence, menace, fraud, or deceit (§§ 236, 237(a); count 5); and making a criminal threat (§ 422; count 6). The trial court sentenced Munoz to an aggregate prison term of 22 years and eight months, plus 25 years to life. When doing so, the court declined to dismiss Munoz’s prior strikes. It also ordered the sentence on count 6 to run concurrently with count 5, and the sentence on count 4 to run consecutively. Munoz challenges his sentence on two grounds. First, he argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike a prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. Second, Munoz argues the trial court erred by failing to stay the sentences on counts 4, 5, and/or 6 pursuant to Penal Code section 654. We resolve this case by memorandum opinion and affirm. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851–854.) I. Munoz claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero motion to strike a prior strike. We conclude otherwise. “[T]he Three Strikes initiative, as well as the legislative act embodying its terms, was intended to restrict courts’ discretion in sentencing repeat offenders.” (Romero, 13 Cal.4th at p. 528.) Trial courts have discretion to dismiss “strike” prior convictions in limited cases where the dismissal is “in furtherance of justice.” (Id. at p. 530; § 1385.) The court determines “whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of [the defendant’s] present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the [Three Strikes] scheme’s spirit.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) A recidivist falls outside the spirit of the law