California Court of Appeal Mar 8, 2024 No. E080906Unpublished
Filed 3/8/24 P. v. Spaugy 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E080906
v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI22002321)
JEVERION WADE SPAUGY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam I. Morton,
Judge. Affirmed.
Robert L. Hernandez, by appointment of 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, Collette C. Cavalier, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Jeverion Spaugy was convicted of forcible rape of his
adopted 17-year-old sister and sentenced to 14 years in state prison. He now appeals the
trial court’s denial of his Romero1 motion to vacate his prior felony conviction allegation.
Defendant argues that subdivision (c), refers to the dismissal of sentencing
“enhancements”; and that such enhancements include the provision of the Three Strikes
law that doubled his term of imprisonment. The People argue that this doubling was not
an enhancement; that subdivision (c) only applies to enhancements; and that because the
Three Strikes doubling was not an enhancement, subdivision (c) did not apply. The
People contend that the trial court properly denied defendant’s Romero request.
6
C. SECTION 1385, SUBDIVISION (C), IS INAPPLICABLE TO THREE
STRIKES PUNISHMENTS
Pursuant to the new subdivision (c) of section 1385, the trial court “shall dismiss
an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so” and must “consider and
afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of the
mitigating circumstances in subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of
one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the
enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger
public safety. ‘Endanger public safety’ means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of
the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.”
(§ 1385, subds. (c)(1) & (c)(2).)
The mitigating circumstances that are allegedly relevant to this appeal are
defendant’s age when he committed the offense supporting the enhancement, i.e.,
whether he was a juvenile; and the age of the prior conviction. (§ 1385, subds. (c)(2)(G)
& (c)(2)(H).)
As the People have noted, the Third District addressed in People v. Burke (2023)
89 Cal.App.5th 237 (Burke) whether a punishment imposed by the Three Strikes law is
an “enhancement for purposes of section 1385” or whether, as the People contend here,
“a prior strike conviction is part of an alternative sentencing scheme” and is therefore not
subject to section 1385, subdivision (c). (Burke, at p. 241.) The Third District held that a
Three Strikes punishment is not an enhancement. Specifically, it cited language from
Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497 at page 527, which stated that the Three Strikes law was
7
“an alternative sentencing scheme for the current offense” rather than an enhancement.
(Burke, at p. 243.) It also cited the Second District’s opinion in People v. Williams
(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 733, which held that the Three Strikes law was “not an
enhancement because it does not add an additional term of imprisonment to the base
term.” (Id. at p. 744.)
“Whether the amendments to section 1385 apply to prior strike convictions is a
question of statutory interpretation which we review de novo.” (Burke, supra, 89
Cal.App.5th at p. 242.) “The statute’s plain language controls unless its words are
ambiguous.” (People v. Maultsby (2012) 53 Cal.4th 296, 299.) “When, however, a term
has developed a particular meaning in the law, we generally presume the legislative body
used the term in that sense rather than relying on ordinary usage.” (In re Friend (2021)
11 Cal.5th 720, 730.)
Here, defendant urges this court to diverge from the Third District’s holding. We
decline to do so. As the Third District succinctly reasoned, the Three Strikes law has
traditionally been distinguished from enhancements and is understood to instead create an
alternative sentencing scheme. This is because, while an enhancement adds time to a
sentence that has been imposed by a specific statute, a Three Strikes law sentence is
imposed under the Three Strikes law itself. We presume the Legislature was aware of
this distinction and, in the absence of explicitly contrary language, presume that it
intended the distinction to apply to section 1385.
In an opinion published after the parties filed their briefs in this matter, the First
District Court of Appeal expanded on the analysis in Burke by highlighting the legislative
8
history of the bill, which “confirms the Legislature had no such intent” to extend the
amendments to the Three Strikes law. (People v. Olay (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 60, 67,
petn. for review pending, petn. filed Jan. 30, 2024.) A June 2021 bill analysis explicitly
distinguished between enhancements and alternative penalty schemes. (Ibid., citing
Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Apr. 27, 2021, pp. 5-6.) The analysis stated that the Three Strikes law was an
alternative penalty scheme and that this bill did not encompass alternative penalty
schemes. (Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 81, supra, as
amended Apr. 27, 2021, p. 6.) As the First District wrote, “A more unambiguous
statement of the Legislature’s intent to adopt the legal meaning of enhancement for
section 1385, subdivision (c) can hardly be imagined.” (Olay, at p. 68.)
Given these principles of statutory interpretation and the supportive legislative
materials, we must reject defendant’s reading of section 1385. We are instead in
agreement with our sister courts of appeal that the amendments to section 1385 apply
only to punishment enhancements; and by limiting the application of section 1385 to
enhancements, the Legislature excluded Three Strikes punishments. It follows that the
trial court was not required to give great weight to the mitigating circumstances provided
by section 1385. Its alleged failure to do so does not constitute error.
D. DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE FIVE-YEAR ENHANCEMENT
FAILS
Section 667, subdivision (a)(1), imposes a five-year enhancement on a sentence
when the defendant has already been convicted of a serious felony at least once before.
9
In his reply brief, defendant argues for the first time that section 1385 applies to his
sentence, even if the statute does not apply to Three Strikes punishments, because his
prior conviction was also used to support a five-year enhancement. However, we
generally disregard new claims that are raised in a reply brief. (Varjabedian v. City of
Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11.)
Irrespective of whether defendant timely presented this issue, the record reflects
that the enhancement had been stayed, such that even if the trial court had dismissed the
prior conviction for enhancement purposes, the dismissal would not have lessened
defendant’s sentence—he still would have been sentenced to 14 years in prison. Thus,
defendant cannot show prejudice.
Because the five-year enhancement argument was waived and because defendant
was not prejudiced by the error he alleges, we decline to address the issue any further.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER Acting P. J.
We concur:
RAPHAEL J.
MENETREZ J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), which requires courts to afford great weight to certain mitigating circumstances when dismissing sentencing enhancements, does not apply to Three Strikes law punishments because they constitute an alternative sentencing scheme rather than an enhancement.
Issues
Whether Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), applies to sentences imposed under the Three Strikes law.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's Romero motion.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude that the amended law’s references to “enhancements” do not include Three Strikes punishments, such that defendant’s argument fails.”
“the Three Strikes law has traditionally been distinguished from enhancements and is understood to instead create an alternative sentencing scheme.”
“the amendments to section 1385 apply only to punishment enhancements; and by limiting the application of section 1385 to enhancements, the Legislature excluded Three Strikes punishments.”