California Court of Appeal Apr 12, 2023 No. E078678Unpublished
Filed 4/12/23 P. v. White CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E078678
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV024044)
EDWARD WHITE, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kyle S. Brodie,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jan B. Norman, 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, Christopher P. Beesley and
Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Edward White, Jr., appeals from the sentence he received after the trial court
granted his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. (Unlabeled
statutory references are to this code.) White contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by not striking one of his prior strike convictions. We disagree and affirm.
when multiple convictions arise out of a single act that injures more than one victim].)
We cannot say that refusing to strike a prior conviction on that basis was irrational or
arbitrary, so the trial court’s conclusion did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
White next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider
factors relevant to the underlying bank robbery conviction. The argument lacks merit. In
support of the argument, White focuses on the representations that the prosecutor made to
the trial court about White’s role in the bank robbery, which White claims were at odds
with this court’s findings when we granted White’s habeas petition. The prosecutor’s
characterization of White’s role in the bank robbery does not matter unless the trial court
indicated that it agreed with that characterization. And there is no indication that the trial
court did. Rather, the trial court repeatedly noted that what was known about White’s
9
role in the bank robbery was that he drove the shooter to the bank and drove him away
from the bank. The court’s description is not inconsistent with this court’s opinion
concerning White’s role.
White’s final argument is that the trial court failed to consider other mitigating
factors such as his age, the length of time between offenses, that White had already
served 21 years for the bank robbery, and his criminal history. This argument too lacks
merit. As to White’s criminal history and the length of time between the offenses, the
trial court noted that after being in prison for the 1989 convictions White had spent
“some time on parole” and “some time violating parole.” Defense counsel attempted to
explain and to minimize what led to the violations, and the court noted that the violations
indicated that White failed to abide by the rules. The court also believed that White’s
postincarceration conviction for possessing a weapon indicated that White still did not
follow the rules. In addition, the court stated that it did not believe that the period
between the two offenses was that long. Thus, contrary to White’s suggestion, the court
explicitly considered the amount of time between the strikes and the bank robbery, as
well as White’s criminal history. The court did not mention White’s age when he
committed the 1989 offenses or the amount of time he had already served for the bank
robbery, but that does not mean that the trial court did not consider those factors.
Defense counsel repeatedly emphasized those points at the hearing. For example,
defense counsel argued that the trial court had the discretion to “make a decision of
what’s going to happen to [White] in the next 10 years, and should it be based on
something that he did as a 20-year old when even with two strikes, he’s got a sizeable
10
sentence that he’s done, and he has done 20 years of his life.” On this record, we cannot
say that the court failed to consider White’s age when he committed the 1989 offenses or
the amount of time he had already served for the bank robbery conviction. (See People v.
Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 638–639 [rejecting the defendant’s argument that
the trial court did not consider relevant factors].)
For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by refusing to strike either of White’s prior strike convictions.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to strike prior strike convictions under Penal Code section 1385 and the Three Strikes law, as the court properly considered the defendant's criminal history and the nature of his offenses.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to strike a prior strike conviction under Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero)?
Did the trial court fail to consider relevant mitigating factors, including the defendant's age and time already served, when denying the motion to strike?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial judge’s comments in denying the Romero motion show that the trial court considered the relevant factors, including the serious and violent nature and circumstances of White’s past and present offenses”
“We cannot say that the court’s determination amounted to an abuse of discretion.”