P. v. Douglas
Filed 7/5/06 P. v. Douglas CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARSHALL NOLAN DOUGLAS, Defendant and Appellant. | B187923 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA061094) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael P. Vicencia, Judge. Affirmed.
Christine C. Shaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Lance E. Winters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Defendant and appellant, Marshall Nolan Douglas (Douglas) appeals the trial court's denial of his Romero motion[1] to strike a prior conviction. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Douglas's motion, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Douglas was arrested on March 7, 2005 in possession of 39 rocks of crack cocaine. The information charged Douglas with possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and alleged a prior felony conviction in 1990 for an assault with great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (A)(1), 12022.7)[2] within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d) and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). Prior drug convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivisions (a) and (c) for the sale of cocaine base and possession of a controlled substance were also alleged. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351.5, 11350.)
Douglas initially pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegations, but he later changed his plea to guilty and admitted the prior strike conviction and the prior conviction for sale of cocaine base. The court found a factual basis for the plea.
The prosecution filed a sentencing memorandum recommending a middle term sentence of four years, doubled for the prior strike and enhanced by three years for the prior conviction for the sale of cocaine base, for a total of 11 years.
Douglas made a Romero motion during the sentencing hearing based on the contentions that his prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon was 15 years old, that it occurred in the context of his defending his mother and that the remainder of his convictions stemmed from his lifelong drug addiction rather than from a criminal character. His motion was denied, and he was sentenced to 11 years in state prison, with 33 days credit for presentence custody and conduct. Final judgment was entered, and Douglas timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Contentions on Appeal and Standard of Review
Douglas contends that the trial court erred in denying his Romero motion under section 1385 because he falls outside the spirit of the three strikes law pursuant to People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 (Williams).
Our review of the denial of a Romero motion follows well-established guidelines. â€
