Opinion
S283230
03-12-2024
PEOPLE v. MOTA (SALVADOR GARCIA)
E079971 Fourth Appellate District, Div. 2.
Petition for review denied
The petition for review is denied.
Concurring Statement
GROBAN, J.
On May 16, 1997, defendant Salvador Garcia Mota was apprehended while shoplifting a $38 pair of jeans from a Mervyn's store. A jury found defendant guilty of petty theft. (Pen. Code, former § 666.) Approximately 20 years earlier, defendant - then a teenager - suffered several prior strike convictions arising out of a serious and violent crime that resulted in a 10-year sentence. Because of those prior strike convictions, defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison under the three strikes law for the offense of shoplifting.
At a resentencing hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, the court denied defendant's motion to strike his prior strike conviction findings pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. In support, the court relied primarily on the severity of the crime defendant committed as a teenager some 45 years ago. Under the highly deferential standard of review governing Romero motions, I agree with the Court of Appeal's conclusion that we cannot say the decision was "so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it." (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377.) I therefore join my colleagues in voting to deny review. The troubling fact remains, however, that defendant, now in his mid- 60s and suffering from numerous medical ailments, has spent over 27 years in prison for stealing a pair of jeans - conduct that can be sentenced as a misdemeanor under current law. (See Pen.
Code, §§ 490; 666.) By comparison, the median time served in state prison before initial release for murder is 17.5 years. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Time Served in State Prison, 2018 (Mar. 2021) table 1, p. 2.)
I write separately to highlight that our denial of the petition for review does not necessarily preclude defendant from obtaining relief at some point in the future, including:
(1) a potential referral for recall and resentencing by the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, or the district attorney (see Pen. Code, § 1172.1, subd. (a)(3) ["The resentencing court may, in the interest of justice and regardless of whether the original sentence was imposed after a trial or plea agreement," reduce or vacate the sentence]);
(2) at a future parole suitability hearing (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2281, subd. (b) ["All relevant, reliable information available to the panel shall be considered in determining suitability for parole. Such information shall include . . . the base and other commitment offenses"]; Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c));
(3) pursuant to a commutation recommendation (see Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (a) ["The Board of Parole Hearings may report to the Governor, from time to time, the names of any and all persons imprisoned in any state prison who, in its judgment, ought to have a commutation of sentence or be pardoned and set at liberty on account of good conduct, or unusual term of sentence, or any other cause" (italics added)].
We Concur: LIU, J. EVANS, J.