People v. Hand CA3

Filed 8/17/16 P. v. Hand CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C080216

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF14330)

v.

DAVID THOMAS HAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Thomas Hand pled no contest to second degree burglary and admitted a prior strike. Prior to sentencing, he was given an opportunity to complete a residential treatment program. When he failed to complete the program, the trial court sentenced him to six years in prison. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero1 motion to strike his prior strike. We disagree.

1 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

1

BACKGROUND In exchange for dismissal of various charges, defendant pled no contest to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)2 and admitted a prior strike for robbery. He had been convicted in 2001 of two counts of robbery (§ 211) with an enhancement for personally using a gun (§ 12022.53). Following his plea, he was permitted to enroll in a six-month residential drug treatment program. It was “an opportunity to complete the program in order to show the judge that he [could] earn a Romero and probation.” Defendant entered a treatment program but was discharged approximately six weeks later. At sentencing, defendant presented a letter to the trial court, which his attorney interpreted as a Romero motion and a request for probation. In the letter, defendant explained that 40 days into his rehabilitation program, he took a urine test and was told he had tested “dirty for things I’ve never used before.” He continued: “This is when I screwed up, I got scared and I got high and missed the court date my attorney set up for me. I freely admit that I messed up by getting high and running but at the same time I wasn’t out there messing up [committing more crimes].” He attributed his conduct to his addiction and stressed that another attempt at treatment would be his best chance of curing his addiction. The People opposed the Romero motion, arguing defendant was not the person the Supreme Court had envisioned in Romero. He had been given the opportunity to complete a residential program before bringing a Romero motion, but he had failed to complete the program and had also failed to return to the trial court for four to five months after being discharged.