People v. Sims CA3

Filed 11/18/25 P. v. Sims CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099479

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFE19990005189 & v. SF075917A)

MAURICE SWEET SIMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Maurice Sweet Sims robbed a woman at gunpoint and was sentenced to 26 years to life in prison under California’s Three Strikes law because he had committed two prior robberies. His sentence also included a one-year enhancement pursuant to former section 667.5, subdivision (b) of the Penal Code.1 In 2022, pursuant to legislative changes, the trial court recalled defendant’s sentence and struck the one-year enhancement.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant also asked the trial court to dismiss one or both of his strikes. The trial court declined, finding that releasing defendant would endanger public safety. On appeal from that order, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by declining to dismiss either strike. We affirm, because defendant has failed to establish an abuse of discretion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1999, defendant pointed a gun at the head of a woman working at a restaurant and stole money and a personal check from the cash register. Defendant pled guilty to second degree robbery and admitted he had been convicted of two prior serious or violent felonies. Defendant also admitted serving a prior prison term. The trial court sentenced him to a mandatory 25 years to life in prison under California’s Three Strikes law plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement. In 2022, pursuant to legislative changes, the trial court recalled defendant’s sentence. The parties agreed the trial court must strike the one-year prior prison term enhancement. Defendant also asked the court to dismiss one or both of his prior strikes. Defendant committed the first strike in 1989 when he was 18. He punched the victim in the face and then took his money and pager. Defendant pled guilty to robbery, was sentenced to three years of probation and nine months in jail and was later sentenced to two years in prison after violating probation. Defendant committed the second strike in 1994 when he was 22. He snatched a purse from a woman and was soon caught. Defendant pled no contest to robbery, and the court sentenced him to four years in prison. Defendant argued the court should dismiss one or both of these strikes based on the nature and circumstances of the three robberies and his background, character, and prospects. Specifically, defendant contended that because the robberies occurred when he was 18, 22, and 27 years old and he was now 51 years old, the remoteness of the crimes and his youth at the time should be mitigating factors. Defendant also noted that