Filed 2/27/15 P. v. Rodriguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E059968
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV1100741)
DANIEL ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stephan G.
Saleson, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
Nancy Olsen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Peter Quon, Jr., and Raquel M. Gonzalez, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant Daniel Robert Rodriguez, who was known as the “Beanie Bandit,” was
found guilty of committing a string of robberies and attempted robberies during the time
period of November 2009 through December 2010. As a result of these convictions, and
because he was subject to a three strikes sentence, he received a total aggregate prison
sentence of 321 years to life.
Defendant now claims on appeal as follows:
1. Penal Code section 6541 precludes multiple punishment on one of the
attempted robberies because it was part of a continuous course of conduct with a single
objective.
2. In the alternative, if this Court finds that section 654 is not applicable, then
the trial court erred by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences on these
counts.
3. The trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant his People v.
Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) motion to dismiss his prior
convictions.
4. His 321-years-to-life sentence constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment
under both the state and federal constitutions.
5. A clerical error in the clerk’s transcript and abstract of judgment must be
corrected.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2
We agree that the abstract of judgment and minute order from sentencing must be
corrected but we otherwise affirm the judgment and sentence.
I
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office with
robbery within the meaning of section 211 against victims Rose Robertson (count 1);
Christa Mascarenas (count 2); Luis Venegas (count 3); Elliott Brown (count 4); Sarah
Keith (count 5); and Tessala Learmont (count 8). He was also charged with attempted
robbery (§§ 664/211) against victims Katherine Inouye (count 6) and Joanne Rand (count
7). It was also alleged as to all counts that he had suffered four prior serious and violent
felony convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (a)(1), (b) through (i),
and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d). It was also alleged that he had served two
prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subdivision (b)). Defendant’s request to bifurcate trial on the
prior convictions was granted.
Defendant was found guilty of all six robberies and the two attempted robberies as
charged. After a court trial on the prior convictions, the trial court found some of the
prior convictions alleged in the information true, as will be set forth in more detail, post.
On all eight convictions, defendant was sentenced to 25-years-to-life sentences
and they were all ordered to run consecutive to count 1, for a total of 200 years to life. In
addition, for each count, he received an additional 15-year sentence (five years on each of
the three prior convictions found true within the meaning of section 667, subdivision
3
(a)(1)). He received one additional year for the prior conviction pursuant to section
667.5, subdivision (b). He received a total determinate term of 121 years.
II
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. People’s Case-in-Chief
1. Rite Aid – Ontario – Rose Robertson (Count 1)
Rose Robertson was a supervisor at the Rite Aid store located at 222 West G
Street in Ontario. At around 7:20 p.m. on November 10, 2009, she was working at one of
the cash registers. Defendant brought items to purchase to her counter and handed her
money. Once she opened the cash register drawer, he demanded all of the money in the
cash register. Robertson felt threatened and had been trained just to hand over the money
if someone demanded it. Robertson believed that defendant would hurt her if she did not
give him the money. Robertson gave defendant over 100 dollars. Defendant was
wearing a dark beanie.
2. Rite Aid – Redlands – Christa Mascarenas (Count 2)
At approximately 8:00 p.m. on November 13, 2009, Christa Mascarenas was
working as a cashier at the Rite Aid located on 700 East Redlands Boulevard in
Redlands. Defendant approached her register and told her, “. . . give me all your money,
or I’ll [blow] your fucking head out.” Defendant had his hand in his pocket like he had a
gun. Mascarenas gave defendant all of the money that was in her register which she
estimated was more than $100. Defendant told her to wait five minutes to call the police
after he left or he would blow her “fucking head off.” Defendant also demanded all of
4
the jewelry that she was wearing which included a necklace and a ring. Mascarenas was
scared and thought she was going to die.
3. Rite Aid – Ontario – Luis Venegas (Count 3)
Silvia Vargas was shopping at the Rite Aid located at 1050 North Mountain in
Ontario at around 6:30 p.m. on November 4, 2010. While she was in the store, defendant
and another person walked into the store. Defendant had what looked to her to be a black
gun tucked into his waistband partially obscured by his sweatshirt. He ordered everyone
in the store to get down and not to look at him.
Jacqueline Mariscal was working as a cashier at the Ontario Rite Aid. She
recalled that defendant approached her and asked her for change for a five dollar bill.
She advised him that she could not open the register to give him change unless he
purchased something. Defendant told her that he had a gun. Mariscal was so scared that
she could not remember how to open the register. Defendant kept his hands in his
pockets the entire time.
Defendant went to another register where Luis Venegas was working. Defendant
yelled at Venegas, “Open the drawer and give me the cash, or I’ll blow your fucking head
off.” Venegas tried to hand him the cash drawer but defendant told him he did not want
to touch the money. He made Venegas hand him the money. Venegas gave defendant
$833. Defendant walked out of the store and Mariscal started crying. Venegas believed
he would be shot or killed if he did not give defendant the money. Defendant was
wearing a beanie hat. Defendant had tattoos on his neck.
5
4. Rite Aid – Fontana – Elliott Brown (Count 4)
On November 6, 2010, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Elliott Brown was working as
a cashier at the Rite Aid on Cherry and Live Oak Streets in Fontana. Defendant
approached Brown with something in his sweater pocket that he pointed toward him;
Brown thought it may be a gun but never saw a gun. Defendant demanded all of the
money in the register, including the money under the drawer. Brown gave him between
$500 and $600. Brown gave defendant the money because he thought he might shoot
him or other customers. Defendant was wearing a beanie. Defendant had a tattoo on his
neck.
5. Petco – Montclair – Sarah Keith (Count 5)
On November 8, 2010, Sarah Keith was working as a cashier at the Petco located
at 9137 Central Avenue in Montclair. That night, defendant approached her register and
told her to give him all of the money in the register or he would blow her head off. Keith
gave him $1,200. Keith thought she would be hurt if she did not comply. Defendant was
wearing a beanie.
Leann Coots, the store manager, was in the break room in the store when she
received a message over the intercom that Keith needed her at the register. As she
approached the register, she observed Keith and a customer were crouched down on the
floor. Keith told Coots that they had just been robbed. Keith looked scared and was
shaking. Coots determined that $1,200 was missing from the register. Keith was still
scared at the time of trial.
6
6. Toys-R-Us – Ontario Mills – Katherine Inouye (Count 6)
On December 12, 2010, Katherine Inouye was working at the Toys-R-Us on
Ontario Mills Parkway in Ontario. She worked doing returns and refunds. At around
8:30 p.m., she saw defendant in the store wearing a hooded sweatshirt. He waited by her
register until all of the other customers were gone. He then approached her register and
told her to give him all of the money in the drawer or he would blow her head off.
Inouye was shocked. She took a step back and asked “What?” Defendant leaned forward
and said, “Give me all your money, or I’m going to blow your fucking head off.”
Defendant had something in his pocket but Inouye believed it was a finger and he was
pretending it was a gun.
Inouye screamed to a security guard, Eric Emerzian, who was standing nearby that
she was being robbed. Emerzian stepped toward Inouye and defendant ran out the door.
Emerzian ran after defendant. Emerzian saw a car quickly approach defendant and
defendant got in the car. They drove off. A customer was able to write down the license
plate number.
7. CVS – Fontana – Tessala Learmont (Count 8)
and Joanne Rand (Count 7)
On December 12, 2010, Tessala Learmont was working as a cashier at the CVS
pharmacy located at 15286 Summit in Fontana. At around 8:50 p.m., she was working at
a cash register and her assistant manager, Joanne Rand, was in the office. Defendant
approached the register with two portable DVD players. Defendant told Learmont to
give him all of the money in the drawer and she would not get shot. Defendant had his
7
hand in his sweater and he made a movement forward as if he was holding something in
the sweater. Learmont was terrified and thought he had a gun in his pocket. Learmont
froze and did not know what to do.
Rand observed something happening at the register and came out of the office.
Rand saw defendant motion like he had a gun in his pocket and heard him ask for money.
Rand told him no and walked toward the telephone to call the police. Defendant looked
surprised. Defendant ran out the door with the DVD players without paying for them.
Rand observed defendant had tattoos on his neck.
8. Apprehension of defendant
On December 13, 2010, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Gabriel Duran
conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle that was seen leaving the Ontario Mills Toys-R-Us.
Defendant was in the passenger’s seat of the vehicle. Deputy Duran searched the vehicle.
Inside he found a Craig DVD player which was a particular brand only sold by CVS
stores. Defendant claimed he had bought the DVD player from “a guy for 50 dollars.”
Defendant had tattoos on his neck. The string of robberies was investigated together and
had been termed the “Beanie Bandit” robberies because the suspect wore a beanie in the
robberies. A further search of the vehicle revealed a navy blue beanie.
B. Defense
Mascarenas was unable to identify defendant from a six-pack photographic lineup
shown to her prior to trial.
8
III
STAY OF THE SENTENCE ON COUNT 7 UNDER SECTION 654
Defendant contends that the trial court should have stayed the sentence on count 7
(the attempted robbery of Rand) pursuant to section 654.
Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a brief in which he made a one-sentence
request that “certain counts to which he suffered convictions be determined to [be]
subject to Penal Code § 654.” He did not make any argument at sentencing regarding
section 654. The trial court stated at sentencing, “[t]he Court finds no facts in mitigation
and does find that consecutive sentences are warranted because each one involves a
separate act of violence or threats of violence committed at different times or places.
And the Court believes they should all run consecutive to one another.”
Section 654, subdivision (a), provides as follows: “An act or omission that is
punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be punished under the
provision that provides for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case
shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. An acquittal or
conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission
under any other.”
Section 654 does not preclude imposition of separate sentences for crimes of
violence committed against different victims, even if all of the acts are in furtherance of a
single objective. (People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1212; People v. Miller
(1977) 18 Cal.3d 873, 885.) Under this so-called multiple victim exception, multiple
punishments for violent crimes against separate individuals is proper even when the
9
crimes are part of an indivisible course of conduct. (Neal v. State of California (1960) 55
Cal.2d 11, 20-21, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Correa (2012) 54 Cal.4th
331; People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1023.) “The purpose of the protection
against multiple punishment is to insure that the defendant’s punishment will be
commensurate with his criminal liability. A defendant who commits an act of violence
with the intent to harm more than one person or by a means likely to cause harm to
several persons is more culpable than a defendant who harms only one person.” (Solis,
supra, at p. 1023.)
“‘[W]hether a crime constitutes an act of violence that qualifies for the multiple-
victim exception to section 654 depends upon whether the crime . . . is defined to
proscribe an act of violence against the person. Indeed, this is the only way that the
multiple-victim exception to section 654’s proscription against multiple punishment
makes sense: The existence of an additional victim of the same violent act creates a
separate offense, with a different item of proof, when the crime is defined in terms of an
act of violence against a person. [Citation.] And the defendant “who commits an act of
violence with the intent to harm more than one person or by a means likely to cause harm
to several persons is more culpable than a defendant who harms only one person.”
[Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Solis, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1023.)
Defendant contends that since attempted robbery does not require the prosecution
to prove the element of force or fear, his conviction in count 7, the attempted robbery of
Rand, cannot be considered an act of violence. “‘Robbery is the felonious taking of
personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence,
10
and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.’ [Citation.]” (People v.
Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 24.) “An attempted robbery requires a specific intent to
commit robbery and a direct, ineffectual act (beyond mere preparation) toward its
commission. [Citations.] Under general attempt principles, commission of an element of
the crime is not necessary. . . . As such, neither a completed theft [citation] nor a
completed assault [citation], is required for attempted robbery. [Citations.]” (People v.
Medina (2007) 41 Cal.4th 685, 694-695.) The California Supreme Court has specifically
found that section 654 “does not apply to robbery and attempted robbery convictions
involving multiple victims . . . “ (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 595 (Deloza).)
While it is true that the People were not required to show force or fear for the
attempted robbery, it did have to show defendant made a direct but ineffectual act toward
completion of the attempted robbery. Here, defendant threatened Rand and pretended to
have a gun. Rand testified that she saw Learmont was nervous and that she went to
investigate. She heard defendant say that he wanted money and that he motioned with his
hand like he had a gun. Rand personally witnessed him motioning as though he had a
gun. Rand immediately went to the telephone to call the police. Rand explained that she
did not really know what her own reaction was; she just picked up the phone and called
the police. Rand was asked directly how she felt during the robbery. She stated, “I don’t
know. I was kind of numb, and I just acted. You know, I was like, I can’t believe this is
happening and went and picked up the phone. I just reacted like that. Didn’t even think.”
Rand had never been robbed before that day.
11
A review of the record supports that defendant used force or fear during the
attempted robbery. Defendant made a motion that he had a gun in his pocket and he
demanded the money in the register. Rand indicated that she was “numb” and just
immediately went to the telephone. Being “numb” reasonably is interpreted to mean that
she was in fear of what defendant might do and she reacted by calling the police.
Although Rand did not react as one may expect, that is not conclusive evidence that she
was not in fear of defendant. Moreover, by acting as though he had a gun and demanding
money, defendant made a credible threat of violence against Rand.
Defendant relies upon People v. Bauer (1969) 1 Cal.3d 368 to support his claim
that section 654 barred the sentence on count 7. In Bauer, the defendant and an
accomplice entered a home, tied up several occupants, and took numerous items of
personal property. The defendant and the accomplice loaded the personal property into
one of the victim’s cars and drove off in the car. (Id. at p. 372.) The defendant argued
that punishing him on one of the robberies and the auto theft from that same victim
violated section 654. Our Supreme Court agreed and explained that “the taking of
several items during the course of a robbery may not be used to furnish the basis for
separate sentences . . . . [W]here a defendant robs his victim in one continuous
transaction of several items of property, punishment for robbery on the basis of the taking
of one of the items and other crimes on the basis of the taking of the other items is not
permissible.” (Id. at pp. 376-377.) In other words, “offenses arising out of the same
transaction [that] are not crimes of violence but involve crimes against property interests
12
of several persons, this court has recognized that only single punishment is permissible.”
(Id. at p. 378.)
Bauer is distinguishable. Here, defendant was convicted of robbery and attempted
robbery against multiple victims. Nothing in Bauer required that the trial court here stay
the attempted robbery or robbery convictions. The attempted robbery and robbery
convictions were distinct crimes involving acts of violence against multiple victims. As
such, section 654 did not bar a consecutive sentence on count 7.
IV
CONCURRENT RATHER THAN CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
ON COUNTS 7 AND 8
Defendant contends that if we reject his argument that section 654 prohibits
separate punishment on count 7, the trial court erred by imposing consecutive rather than
a concurrent sentence on count 7.
A. Additional Factual Background
At the time of sentencing, the trial court set out the aggravating factors it found
applicable pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 4.421. The court found “the
crimes certainly involved the threat of great bodily harm, and the manner in which the
crimes were carried out certainly indicates planning, and the crimes certainly involve the
attempted or actual taking of substantial monetary sums.” The trial court also found, “the
defendant’s background, he’s engaged in violent conduct . . . is violent, serious danger to
society. The prior convictions are numerous and of consistent and increasing seriousness.
13
There have been prior prison terms, and, in fact, [defendant] was on parole when the
crime was committed.”
The trial court concluded there were no facts in mitigation and found that
“consecutive sentences are warranted because each one involves a separate act of
violence or threats of violence committed at different times or places.”
B. Analysis
When a defendant is sentenced on multiple felony counts under the three strikes
law because he has previously been convicted of one or more serious and or violent
felony offenses, the trial court must impose consecutive sentences for all the current
convictions unless the current offenses were committed on the same occasion or arise
from the same set of operative facts. (§§ 667, subds.(c)(6), (7), 1170.12, subds. (a)(6),
(7).) The trial court retains discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive
sentences for crimes committed on the same occasion or arising from the same set of
operative facts, even though they involved different victims. (Deloza, supra, 18 Cal.4th
at pp. 591, 595; see also People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 226-228, 233.)
“[T]he question of whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive is separate
from the question of whether section 654 prohibits multiple punishment.” (Deloza,
supra, at p. 594.) Accordingly, “there are certain crimes that are ‘committed on the same
occasion,’ such as committing a violent crime against multiple victims, for which
subdivision (a)(6) and (7) does not mandate consecutive sentencing, even though section
654 does not preclude multiple punishment.” (Deloza, at p. 595.)
14
For purposes of whether a consecutive sentence was mandatory in this case,
counts 7 and 8 were committed on the same occasion and arising from the same operative
facts. Respondent does not argue that mandatory consecutive sentences were warranted.
As such, consecutive sentences were not mandatory in this case.
When deciding whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences in a three
strikes case involving multiple offenses occurring on the same occasion, the trial court
should be guided by the criteria set forth in former rule 425 (renumbered rule 4.425) of
the California Rules of Court and consider, among other matters, whether the crimes
were predominately independent of each other, whether they involved separate acts of
violence or threats of violence, whether they were committed at different times or
separate places, and whether any factors in aggravation existed to warrant a consecutive
sentence. (Deloza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 596, fn. 7; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule
4.425.)
When the record affirmatively shows the trial court misunderstood the scope of its
discretion to impose concurrent sentences in a three strikes case, remand for resentencing
is required. (Deloza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 600.) There is nothing in the instant record
that shows the trial court misunderstood its discretion to impose concurrent sentences. It
specifically stated that it was imposing consecutive sentences because each of the crimes
involved acts or threats of violence. “‘In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is
presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary
determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.’
[Citation.]” (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977-978.)
15
Here, the trial court found that all of the crimes involved violence or threats of
violence. Defendant insists that count 7 did not involve a separate act of violence or
credible threat of violence. We disagree. Although Rand did not start crying or shaking
upon defendant demanding money from the cash register, she said she was “numb” and
just reacted. She saw defendant motion that he had a gun in his pocket. The trial court
did not abuse its discretion in finding that count 7 involved a separate threat of violence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence on count 7.
V
ROMERO MOTION
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his Romero motion.
Initially, he claims that it was not clear what strikes the trial court relied upon in denying
his Romero motion as the record does not clearly state which priors were found true by
the trial court. Moreover, he insists the trial court abused its discretion by denying his
motion, specifically for the attempted robbery convictions in counts 6 and 7.
A. The Number of Prior Strike Convictions
The information filed in this case charged that defendant had suffered the
following serious prior convictions pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1): robbery
conviction on 03/03/1994 in Los Angeles case No. VA026471; robbery conviction on
09/08/1994 in Riverside case No. CR56559; and two robbery convictions on 07/22/1998
in Los Angeles case No. KA040883. Under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and
1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), the information alleged that defendant had suffered
two robbery convictions in case No. KA040883 and two robbery convictions in case No.
16
VA026471. In addition, it was alleged under section 667.5, subdivision (b) that he had
served two prior prison terms as follows: Los Angeles case No. A482950 for
HS11350(A) on 07/13/1989 and Los Angeles case No. VA020421 for PC § 459 on
03/15/1994.
A court trial was conducted on defendant’s prior convictions. Exhibits 63, 64, 66
and 67 were introduced, which detailed the prior convictions in case Nos. VA020421,
CR56559, KA040883 and VA026471. The abstracts of judgment were included for each
of these cases and provided for the following convictions: (1) two convictions of robbery
(§ 211) on 7/22/1998 in case No. KA040883; (2) one conviction of robbery (§ 211) on
09/08/94 in case No. CR56559; (3) one conviction of robbery (§ 211) and one conviction
of grand theft (§ 487 (1)) on 03/03/94 (sentencing date of 03/15/94) in case No.
VA026471; and (4) one count of burglary (§ 459) and one count of possession of a
firearm by a felon (§ 12021(A)) on 02/15/04 (sentencing date of 03/15/94) in case No.
VA020421. The People presented no other evidence of the prior convictions. The trial
court stated only that defendant had suffered the prior felony convictions committed on
07/22/98, 09/08/94, 03/15/94 and 04/06/90.
It is clear that the trial court found for the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) priors
that only one of the robbery convictions in case No. KAO4883 was true. It additionally
found the robbery conviction in case No. CR56559 to be true. Defendant concedes that
the “03/15/94” conviction was for one robbery conviction in case No. VA026471. This is
evidenced by the fact that the trial court sentenced defendant on three section 667,
subdivision (a)(1) priors. Additionally, defendant was sentenced to a three strikes
17
sentence which was supported by the two robbery convictions in case Nos. VA026471
and KA040883. Finally, the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior was supported by the
burglary in case No. VA020421. All of these priors were alleged in the information and
supported by the exhibits presented by the People.2 As such, the trial court implicitly
made sufficient findings as to the prior convictions upon which defendant was sentenced.
(See People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 691, fn. 17 [implicit true finding on prior
convictions when the enhancement was imposed by the trial court and evidence of
conviction was presented by the prosecution]; People v. Chambers (2002) 104
Cal.App.4th 1047, 1050-1051 [the trial court had impliedly rendered a true finding on the
firearm enhancement when it imposed a term based upon that enhancement].)
Defendant contends that the conviction in case No. CR56559 was not properly
pled in the information as a “strike” and therefore the trial court improperly relied upon it
in denying his Romero motion. He relies on the probation report that lists the conviction
in case No. CR56559 as “Strike #2.” While it may be true that the information did not
charge that this was a strike, the information did allege case No. CR56559 under section
667, subdivision (a)(1). As such, whether or not it qualified as a “strike” did not
foreclose the court from considering the conviction in assessing his background.
Moreover, there is no indication that the trial court relied on this conviction as a strike.
Finally, as will be set forth post, the trial court relied on the entirety of defendant’s
background and prospects in denying the motion, not any specific strike convictions.
2 There is nothing in the record as to the “04/06/90” conviction but it is not
evident from the record that he was sentenced on that conviction.
18
There was no apparent confusion on the part of the trial court as to defendant’s prior
convictions.
B. Refusal to Strike Convictions
Defendant filed a sentencing brief and requested that the trial court strike his prior
convictions under Romero because even without the prior convictions, he would serve a
lengthy sentence. He argued other relevant factors including that his prior convictions
arose from a single period of abhorrent behavior for which he served a single prison term,
he cooperated with police and his prior crimes were related to drug addiction.
The People filed opposition to the Romero motion. The People argued that
defendant had suffered 26 criminal convictions since he turned 18 years old. Defendant
had committed robberies in 1994 resulting in a prison sentence and then in 1998 he
committed another series of robberies. The current robberies were committed when he
was released from prison. Defendant had no appreciable period in his life when he was
not involved with the criminal justice system. The only way to stop his further acts was
to incarcerate him.
At the hearing, the trial court stated it had read both the Romero motion and the
opposition filed by the People. Defense counsel agreed with the probation report that
defendant suffered from post traumatic stress for an event that happened during his 12
years of incarceration. Further, defense counsel argued that the trial court had some
discretion to carve out a sentence that would at least give defendant some hope that he
could be released from prison. Defendant never hurt anyone during these robberies.
Defense counsel described defendant as a “nonviolent robber.”
19
The trial court denied the Romero motion initially stating, “There’s actually
nothing that I see in [defendant]’s past that would warrant a consideration of the Court’s
discretion . . . And there’s a reason we have a three strikes law, and I am afraid that
[defendant] certainly would be emblematic of the reason that we have such a law.” The
trial court considered defendant to be a “compulsive thief.” Defendant created an
“atmosphere” of fear every place that he went. He exposed innocent people to possible
danger. Defendant told his victims that he was going to blow their brains out. He was
brazen in that he must have known surveillance video captured the robberies. Nothing
stopped him.
The trial court noted that no one was shot or beaten, “but everyone was threatened,
and everyone was afraid, and everyone will carry that badge with them for the rest of
their lives, thanks to [defendant].” The trial court found that defendant was not entitled
to the discretion that would be necessary to give him a lesser sentence. Defendant fit
every negative criteria, including his background and criminal background and his chance
of rehabilitation was “slim and none.”
The trial court concluded, “So the Court finds that, based on [defendant]’s
background, his criminal history, his potentiality for any sort of rehabilitation I find to be
nonexistent and worthy of the three strikes law and exactly right within the dictates of
Penal Code Section 1385. So the request to strike a strike or multiple strikes is
respectfully denied.”
We review the trial court’s ruling refusing to strike a prior conviction for abuse of
discretion. (Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 504; see also People v. Carmony (2004) 33
20
Cal.4th 367, 375 (Carmony).) The discretion is extremely limited, and may only properly
be exercised in the extraordinary case where, “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.)
“Because the circumstances must be ‘extraordinary . . . by which a career criminal
can be deemed to fall outside the spirit of the very scheme within which he squarely falls
once he commits a strike as part of a long and continuous criminal record, the
continuation of which the law was meant to attack’ [citation], the circumstances where no
reasonable people could disagree that the criminal falls outside the spirit of the three
strikes scheme must be even more extraordinary.” (Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p.
378.)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike any of defendant’s
prior convictions. According to the probation report, beginning in 1986 and through
1994, defendant was convicted of a crime almost every year. These included numerous
drug offenses, but also burglary convictions. In 1994, he was convicted of robbery in
case Nos. VA026471 and CR56559. He was sent to prison. He violated his parole
several times. In 1998, he committed two more robberies and was sent to prison in case
No. KA040883 for 12 years. Defendant began committing the current robberies in 2009
and continued through December 2010, when he was finally apprehended. Defendant’s
21
convictions increased in seriousness. Defendant’s long and continuous criminal record
warranted his three strikes sentence.
Moreover, there are no extraordinary circumstances placing him outside the spirit
of the three strikes law. Defendant committed crimes each and every time he was
released from prison. Defendant had no prospects. Defendant threatened each of his
victims during his robberies and he tried to minimize his crimes by arguing he did not
physically hurt any of the victims. Several of the victims were terrified during the
robberies, and one victim was still afraid at trial.
Based on defendant’s criminal history and current convictions, the trial court’s
decision to not strike his prior convictions was neither irrational nor arbitrary. (Carmony,
supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 376-377.)
VI
CRUEL AND/OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS
Defendant contends that his sentence of 321 years to life constituted cruel and/or
unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions. He insists that his robberies
did not involve weapons or physical injury to the victims. Moreover, his sentence
constitutes life without the possibility of parole.
Initially, defendant forfeited the contention that his sentence constituted cruel
and/or unusual punishment under the state and federal constitutions by failing to raise the
issue below. (People v. Em (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 964, 971, fn. 5; People v. Norman
(2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 221, 229; People v. DeJesus (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1, 27 [since
22
the determination of a state cruel and unusual punishment claim is fact specific it must be
raised in the trial court].) “Nevertheless, we shall reach the merits under the relevant
constitutional standards, in the interest of judicial economy to prevent the inevitable
ineffectiveness-of-counsel claim.” (People v. Norman, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p.
230.)
A. State Standard
Under the California Constitution, “a statutory punishment may violate the
constitutional prohibition [against cruel and unusual punishment] not only if it is inflicted
by a cruel or unusual method, but also if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense for
which it is imposed.” (People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441, 478.) “A penalty offends
the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment when it is ‘so disproportionate to
the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental
notions of human dignity.’ [Citations.]” (People v. King (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 567,
571, quoting In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 424.) “A tripartite test has been
established to determine whether a penalty offends the prohibition against cruel and
unusual punishment. First, courts examine the nature of the offense and the offender,
‘with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society.’ Second, a
comparison is made of the challenged penalty with those imposed in the same jurisdiction
for more serious crimes. Third, the challenged penalty is compared with those imposed
for the same offense in other jurisdictions. [Citations.]” (People v. King, at p. 572; see
also In re Reed (1983) 33 Cal.3d 914, 923.)
23
Defendant makes no attempt to argue the second and third prongs set forth, ante.
As such, we need only address the first prong, the nature of the offense and the offender.
(See People v. Em, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 972-975.)
As to the current offenses, defendant contends that there were just two periods of
distasteful behavior and the sentences on counts 6 and 7 were grossly disproportionate to
his individual culpability. However, defendant completely ignores that he threatened his
victims and pretended to have a gun in his possession. Moreover, as acknowledged by
defendant, because his criminal background includes numerous robberies, it is unlikely
that his sentence is cruel and unusual under existing law. Such an assessment is correct.
The only thing that stopped defendant from continually committing crimes was
incarceration. Defendant has failed to demonstrate his punishment violates the California
Constitution.
B. Federal Standard
Defendant’s claim fares no better under the federal Constitution, which does not
require strict proportionality between crime and punishment. “‘Rather, [the Eighth
Amendment] forbids only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the
crime.’” (People v. Cartwright (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1135; see also Harmelin v.
Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, 1001.)
24
The United States Supreme Court has upheld statutory schemes that result in life
imprisonment for recidivists upon a third conviction for a nonviolent felony in the face of
challenges that such sentences violate the federal constitutional prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment. (See Ewing v. California (2003) 538 U.S. 11, 18, 30-31 [25-
years-to-life sentence under California’s three strikes law for the theft of three golf clubs
worth $399 apiece]; Lockyer v. Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63, 66-67, 77 [two consecutive
25-years-to-life terms for two separate thefts of videotapes worth less than $100].) The
protection afforded by the Eighth Amendment applies only in the “‘exceedingly rare’”
and “‘extreme’” case. (Ewing v. California, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 21.)
Defendant’s crimes were significantly worse than those in Lockyer and Ewing.
Defendant committed numerous robberies against multiple victims. He told some of the
victims he would blow their brains out if they did not comply. Some of his victims were
reduced to tears and crouching on the floor in fear. Defendant pretended he had a
firearm, and in at least one instance, a witness believed to have seen a gun.
While we recognize that defendant faces a particularly lengthy sentence, he has
not demonstrated this is the exceedingly rare and extreme case that violates the federal
Constitution based on his actions in this case and based on his prolific criminal history.
Defendant has failed to show that his sentence constitutes cruel and/or unusual
punishment under either the state or federal constitutions.
25
VII
ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT
Defendant contends that the abstract of judgment and minute order from
sentencing must be modified to accurately reflect the oral sentence of the trial court.
Respondent concedes the error and we will order that the abstract of judgment be
modified as indicated, post.
The oral sentence was stated by the trial court as follows: “Count 1, which is a
Robbery, it carries a 25 to life pursuant to Penal Code 1170.12 (c)(2)(A), with the
enhancement of Penal Code Section 667(a)(1), serious felony with prior conviction found
true, five years; the enhancement of serious felony with prior conviction for serious
felony found true for five additional years, and an additional enhancement, 667 (a)(1),
serious felony with prior conviction, found true, for an additional five years. Each count,
Counts 1 through and including 8, will all be the same sentences as just enunciated by the
Court, all carrying the same amount of years, all consecutive to one another; and, lastly, a
special allegation of prior prison term, a nonviolent felony found true for one year. Thus
the commitment to state prison is a total of 200 years to life plus 121 years.”
The abstract of judgment incorrectly states that a five-year sentence was imposed
on a section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior. Such entry is incorrect and should be deleted
from the abstract of judgment. “When an abstract of judgment does not reflect the actual
sentence imposed in the trial judge’s verbal pronouncement, the . . . Court has the
inherent power to correct such clerical error on appeal . . .” (People v. Jones (2012) 54
Cal.4th 1, 9.)
26
Further, for each of the prior 667, subdivision (a)(1) priors, defendant received
five years for all eight convictions. The abstract of judgment currently states he received
38, 39 and 44 years on these priors. As such, each of the prior convictions under section
667, subdivision (a)(1) should state that 40 years was imposed. The minute order from
sentencing and abstract of judgment should be modified to reflect the oral sentence.
We also note that the trial court imposed restitution fines to be paid to the victims
pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f). It stated, “Restitution to the victims to be
collected by the Department of Corrections as follows: 833 dollars to Rite-Aid, Ontario;
700 dollars to Rite-Aid, Fontana; 1167.77 to Petco in Montclair; 932 dollars to Toys-R-
Us in Montclair; 182 dollars and 98 cents to CVS in Fontana.” Although the abstract of
judgment lists the total amount awarded, it does not reflect the breakdown of the
restitution. The abstract of judgment should be modified to check the box entitled
“*Victim names (s), if known, and amount breakdown, in item 11, below” and the
breakdown should be included in item 11.
27
VIII
DISPOSITION
We order that the abstract of judgment and the minute order from sentencing be
modified to strike the five-year sentence imposed for a section 667.5, subdivision (b)
prior, and that each of the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) priors be modified to reflect a
sentence of 40 years on each prior. In addition, the abstract of judgment should be
modified to include the breakdown of victim restitution as set forth in this opinion. We
otherwise affirm the judgment in its entirety.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
HOLLENHORST
J.
28
People v. Rodriguez CA4/2
Combined Opinion