People v. Davis CA3

Filed 6/9/15 P. v. Davis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C077060

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F2584)

v.

CHRISTOPHER HUGH DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Christopher Hugh Davis entered a negotiated plea of guilty to a charge of failure to appear and admitted a prior strike (arson of personal property) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining allegations, a sentencing lid of four years in state prison, and—significant to this appeal—the opportunity to request dismissal of the prior strike (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero)). Ultimately, the trial court denied defendant’s Romero request and sentenced defendant to state prison for four years (the midterm doubled for the prior strike).

1

Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erroneously denied his Romero request. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 19, 2012, defendant was ordered to be present on April 6, 2012, in case No. 12F1284 which charged receiving stolen property. Defendant failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant’s failure to appear was charged in case No. 12F2584, which is the case that currently underlies this appeal. Defendant entered a plea of no contest to the failure to appear charge in case No. 12F2584 and admitted the prior strike conviction in exchange for dismissal of other remaining allegations and the opportunity to file a Romero motion. The plea also provided for the dismissal of case No. 12F1284 (with a Harvey waiver) and a third case, No. 12F4544. After entering his plea, defendant requested that the court dismiss the prior strike pursuant to Romero, arguing that his failure to appear was one of the least serious felonies with a triad of 16 months, two years, or three years, that his prior strike was 14- years old and was the least serious of all arson crimes (burning of personal property with a top punishment of three years), and that his background, character and prospects weighed in favor of dismissing the prior strike. The prosecutor opposed defendant’s request, noting that defendant had not been “crime-free” since the arson offense. The trial court denied defendant’s Romero request, citing his prior felony offenses, the fact he was on probation out of Oregon at the time of the current offense, his criminal history, his character and his lack of future prospects. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero request, reiterating the arguments he made above that his current offense is not a serious or violent offense, that his prior strike for arson is now remote in time, and that his good character is supported by the statement of his previous employer. Citing People v. Cluff