P. v. Bradford
Filed 4/6/07 P. v. Bradford CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARL BRADFORD, Defendant and Appellant. | D049657 (Super. Ct. No. SCD190605) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Pennie M. Carlos, Judge. Affirmed.
Carl Bradford entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)), and admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (b)-(i), 667, 1170.12).[1] On May 9, 2005, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years' probation pursuant to section 1210. On September 22, the court formally revoked and reinstated probation. On December 21, it again formally revoked and reinstated probation. On June 16, 2006, it revoked probation for the third time. It denied a motion to strike the prior strike and sentenced Bradford to four years in prison: double the two-year middle term for possessing a controlled substance with a prior strike. Bradford contends that denying the motion to strike the prior strike was an improper sentencing choice.
FACTS
In 1975, Bradford was convicted of robbery. ( 211.)
On April 25, 2005, a San Diego Police Officer stopped a car Bradford was driving for a cracked windshield and because Bradford was not wearing a seatbelt. When the officer learned Bradford had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for his arrest, the officer arrested him. During a search at the jail, an officer found .38 grams of cocaine base in Bradford's pocket.
DISCUSSION
Whether to strike a prior strike is in the trial court's discretion. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-530.) A trial court's decision not to strike a strike will be upheld unless the decision is irrational or arbitrary. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377.) That reasonable minds might differ or that we would have exercised discretion differently is not sufficient. (Ibid.) In ruling whether to dismiss a prior strike, the court must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of his present criminal activity and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, the defendant may be deemed outside the spirit of the three strikes law and should be treated as though he had not committed one or more prior strikes. (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 162-163.)
Bradford argues the prior strike should have been stricken because it occurred in 1975, the present offense is minor, most of his criminal activity has been drug related, he is borderline mentally retarded, and he uses drugs for self-medication of a back problem. Over the past 35 years, Bradford has repeatedly been the subject of juvenile court true findings and convicted of criminal acts including: burglary ( 459); twice for robbery ( 211); four times for petty theft with a prior theft conviction ( 484/666); reckless driving (Veh. Code, 23103), selling or transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)); twice for possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)); battery ( 242, 243, subd. (a)), and the present conviction of possessing a controlled substance. This lengthy criminality includes both drug and non-drug related activity. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Bradford does not fall outside the scheme of the three strikes law.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
