Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC063447
Pollak, Acting P. J.
Defendant Tonya Michelle Williams appeals a judgment convicting her of petty theft with a prior and sentencing her under the three strikes law to four years in state prison. She contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike her prior strike conviction. She also asks that we correct the abstract of judgment, which erroneously reflects a sentence of five years four months rather than the four-year sentence bargained for and imposed by the court. We will correct the abstract of judgment but affirm the judgment in all other respects.
Background
On February 18, 2006, defendant stole more than $2,000 worth of merchandise from two Safeway stores. Defendant pled no contest to two counts of petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666) and admitted four prior felony convictions, one of which qualified as a strike under section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). She was promised a maximum sentence of four years with the possibility that the court would grant a motion to strike the prior strike conviction. The court subsequently denied defendant’s motion to strike and sentenced her to four years in state prison. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
1. The abstract of judgment shall be corrected.
The court sentenced defendant, consistent with her plea bargain, to four years in state prison. The abstract of judgment, however, erroneously reflects that the court imposed a sentence of five years four months. The Attorney General acknowledges that the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the sentence imposed by the court. This court has inherent power to correct errors and omissions in an abstract of judgment to reflect a defendant’s true sentence. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-187.) Accordingly, the abstract of judgment shall be amended to reflect defendant’s correct sentence: the low-term of 16 months on count 1 and a consecutive eight-month term on count 2, both doubled by virtue of the prior strike conviction.
2. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to strike.
Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, requesting that the court strike her prior strike conviction. The court denied the motion, explaining to defendant, “[Y]ou have a very lengthy history of offenses. In this case, it is clear that you spent all day going to various establishments to steal. I cannot say that in this case there are unusual circumstances. I cannot say based on this record that you fall outside the three strikes scheme.”
When considering whether to strike a prior conviction, a court must consider “whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme's spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161.) The three strikes law “not only establishes a sentencing norm, it carefully circumscribes the trial court’s power to depart from this norm. . . . [T]he law creates a strong presumption that any sentence that conforms to these sentencing norms is both rational and proper.” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 378.)
Defendant argues that she does not fall within the spirit of the three strikes law because her current felony is nonviolent and her prior violent crimes, including her prior strike conviction, were committed 20 years ago. While this may be true, defendant’s criminal record is, as the trial court noted, lengthy. In addition to two 1987 robberies, defendant suffered two additional felony convictions in 1991 and 2005, 10 misdemeanor convictions between 1990 and 2005, and 21 probation revocations. Defendant was on probation for two separate convictions at the time of the present offenses and had outstanding warrants in both Alameda and Solano Counties. Based on this record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. The abstract of judgment shall be amended to reflect defendant’s correct sentence: the low term of 16 months on count 1 and a consecutive eight-month term on count 2, both doubled by virtue of the prior strike conviction.
We concur: Siggins, J., Jenkins, J.