People v. Redente CA5

Filed 6/2/14 P. v. Redente CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F067025

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 11CM3009, 12CM1058, 12CM4287) ANDREW NICHOLAS REDENTE, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Donna L. Tarter, Judge. Patrick J. Hennessey, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.

Defendant Andrew Nicholas Redente, Jr. pled guilty to smuggling methamphetamine into the county jail (Pen. Code, § 4573),1 and he admitted suffering a prior strike conviction for robbery in 1992. Pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-530 (Romero) and section 1385, he requested that the trial court dismiss his prior strike conviction. The court denied the request and sentenced him to the middle term of three years, doubled to six years (§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)).2 On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant his Romero motion to dismiss his prior strike conviction. We disagree and will affirm. DISCUSSION Section 1385 grants trial courts the discretion to dismiss a prior strike conviction if the dismissal is in furtherance of justice. (§ 1385, subd. (a); Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-530.) “‘A court’s discretion to strike [or vacate] prior felony conviction allegations [or findings] in furtherance of justice is limited. Its exercise must proceed in strict compliance with … section 1385[, subdivision ](a) .…’” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 158.) The Three Strikes law “was intended to restrict courts’ discretion in sentencing repeat offenders.” (Romero, supra, at p. 528; People v. Garcia (1999) 20 Cal.4th 490, 501 [“a primary purpose of the Three Strikes law was to restrict judicial discretion”].) The Three Strikes law establishes “‘a sentencing requirement to be applied in every case where the defendant has at least one qualifying strike’” unless the sentencing court finds a reason for making an exception to this rule. (People v. Carmony