Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCN231517, Timothy Casserly, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted Juan Vasquez Flores of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211), one count of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664), and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021.1, subd. (b)). The jury also found true an allegation Flores personally and intentionally discharged a revolver during the commission of the attempted robbery. (§ 12022.53, subd. (c).) In addition, Flores admitted he had three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667 subd. (a)(1), and three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced Flores under the three strikes law to a prison term of 110 years to life.
Further statutory references are also to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
Flores appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion by declining to dismiss one or more of the prior strike conviction findings. We conclude there is no merit to this contention and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Oceanside Market Incident
At around 4:30 p.m. on May 21, 2007, Flores, who was wearing a ski mask and carrying a backpack, pointed a semiautomatic handgun at an employee in a market in Oceanside and demanded all the money from the cash registers. The employee complied and gave Flores approximately $700. Flores quickly walked out the front door.
A person driving by the market at the time saw Flores, whom she identified both in court and in a photographic lineup, run out of the market clutching a backpack to his chest. Because the situation looked suspicious, the person kept her eye on Flores as he ran to the parking lot. She saw him enter the passenger side of an older Mercedes. The car was backed into a stall and its engine was running.
Carmel Valley Market Incident
At around 4:30 p.m. on June 26, 2007, the manager of a market in Carmel Valley was walking a customer to the front door when the customer yelled, "Oh, my God." The manager turned around and saw a man in a mask, who pointed a semiautomatic handgun at the manager's face. The manager immediately put his hands up and the gunman guided him to the counter. At the counter, a trainee tried to push the emergency button, but opened the cash register instead. As the manager and the trainee were giving the gunman money, the gunman leaned over the counter, pointed to the safe, and asked for the money in it as well. The manager gave the gunman money from the safe. The gunman then asked for a bottle of liquor. The manager grabbed a bottle and put it in the gunman's bag. The gunman ordered the manager and the trainee to turn around and put up their hands. He instructed them not to call the police for one minute or he would return.
As soon as the manager heard the gunman leave, the manager turned around and looked out the window. He saw an older, gray or silver-colored Mercedes. He yelled out the car's make, model, color, and license plate number. As the gunman ran toward the car, he took off his mask revealing partially gray hair and a mustache. The gunman took approximately $1,800.
The license plate belonged to another vehicle that had been reported lost or stolen.
San Marcos Market Incident
At around 3:30 p.m. on July 12, 2007, the owner of a San Marcos market was sitting at his desk in his office watching the market's video surveillance system when he saw a man walking in the alley next to the market. The man was clutching a small bag to his chest and appeared to be hiding something. A car pulled up behind the man. The man stopped, then continued walking after the car left. He looked around as he was walking. The next time the store owner saw the man, the man was wearing a mask. The store owner got up from his chair because he thought the man was coming to rob him.
The store owner grabbed a gun to defend himself and looked through his office door's one-way mirror. He saw the man inside the store looking around. The store owner opened his office door and, as soon as the man saw the store owner, the man pointed a gun at him. The store owner heard shots fired and fired three shots in response. The store owner heard the man fire four or five shots in the direction of his office. When the gunfire ceased, the store owner called 911. The gunman left the market and walked to the parking lot. He continued firing shots at the store, breaking the store's front window.
The same day, between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., a man was inside an apartment near the market when he heard gunshots. He ran to the window and saw someone coming out of the market during an apparent gunfight. The gunman took off his mask just before reaching the parking lot and ran to a nearby Mercedes. The Mercedes drove away with tires screeching.
At around 3:45 p.m., sheriff's deputies arrived at the store. One of them obtained a description of the suspect and vehicle and broadcast the information. A short time later, a sheriff's deputy saw a Mercedes with Flores and his accomplice, Enrique Valdez, on the freeway. Valdez, who was driving the Mercedes, subsequently led multiple law enforcement officers on a high-speed pursuit. During the pursuit, Flores threw several items out of the Mercedes's window, including a gun, a black backpack, and a floor mat that hit and smashed the back window of one of the pursuing patrol cars. At times, the pursuit reached speeds of 100 miles per hour as Valdez swerved in and out of traffic. The pursuit ended when Valdez exited the freeway at a weigh station in San Clemente.
The gun's owner had reported it stolen.
DISCUSSION
At his sentencing hearing, Flores filed a motion inviting the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss one or more of the prior strike conviction findings. The trial court declined to do so, finding Flores did not fall outside the letter or spirit of the three strikes law.
Flores contends the trial court abused its discretion in declining to dismiss any of the prior strike conviction findings because, while he falls within the letter of the three strikes law, he does not fall within its spirit. More particularly, Flores contends a three strikes law sentence, which is effectively life without the possibility of parole, is too harsh for his crimes and the trial court could have imposed an appropriate punishment outside the three strikes law. In addition, Flores contends his prior strike convictions were the product of an abusive upbringing and a severe addiction, they are remote in time, they occurred in a single case, and they represented a single period of aberrant behavior. He also contends that, after his release from prison for the prior strike convictions, he demonstrated an ability to maintain successful employment and social relationships. Lastly, although he acknowledges being convicted of three other offenses between his prior strike convictions and his current convictions, he suggests the interim convictions do not support the imposition of a three strikes law sentence in this case because two of them were misdemeanors for which he successfully completed probation and the other, for felony drug possession, occurred just months before he committed the instant offenses.
In determining whether to dismiss a prior strike conviction finding under section 1385, the trial 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 [three strikes law'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.) A trial court does not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss a prior strike conviction finding unless the trial court's decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377.) Where the record shows that the trial court balanced the relevant factors and reached an impartial decision conforming to the spirit of the law, we will affirm the trial court's ruling, even if we might have ruled differently. (Id. at p. 378.)
Here, the record shows the trial court considered the parties' written and oral arguments and the letters written by Flores's friends and family members explaining his abusive upbringing, his more commendable qualities, and his ongoing positive contributions to their lives. The record further shows the trial court balanced the relevant factors, and decided not to exercise its discretion to dismiss any of the prior strike convictions because of their seriousness and the seriousness of the current convictions. Specifically, the trial court noted the prior strike convictions, just like the current convictions, involved armed robberies. The trial court further noted that, within the realm of robberies, the current convictions were about as serious as they could be given; one of them involved Flores having a shootout with a store owner. Although the trial court noted the prior strike convictions were old, the trial court did not find their age mitigating because Flores spent a significant amount of time in prison after his prior strike convictions. Moreover, Flores did not remain law-abiding between his prior strike convictions and his current convictions. In fact, one of his interim offense was a battery on a peace officer. Consequently, the court found Flores was arguably a "three strikes law poster child."
The factors considered by the trial court were appropriate and nothing in the record shows the trial court acted irrationally, arbitrarily, or with partiality. We, therefore, conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the prior strike conviction finding.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, J., IRION, J.