P. v. Snow
Filed 3/27/06 P. v. Snow CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PRESTON LAMAR SNOW, Defendant and Appellant. | E038071 (Super.Ct.No. FVA 022487) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Roberta McPeters, Judge. Affirmed.
Nancy E. Olsen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Ratner Sobeck,
Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Preston Lamar Snow appeals from judgment entered following a bifurcated trial. The jury convicted defendant of petty theft with a prior theft conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 484, subd. (a)(1) and 666.)[1] In the bifurcated trial, the jury thereafter found true that defendant had been previously convicted of two serious and/or violent felonies (strikes) (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a) – (d) and 667, subds. (b) – (i)). The jury also found true that defendant had two prison priors (§ 667.5).
After denying defendant's motion to reduce his theft conviction to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b) and his Romero[2] motion seeking to strike at least one of his strikes, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes Law, plus two years for his prison priors.
Defendant contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by informing prospective jurors during voir dire that defendant was charged with petty theft with a prior conviction. In addition, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reduce his theft conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b), and by denying his Romero motion to strike at least one of his strikes. Finally, defendant asserts that his 25-years-to-life sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and violates principles of double jeopardy.
We reject defendant's contentions and affirm the judgment.
1. Facts
On July 28, 2004, a Home Depot loss prevention investigator observed defendant take off the store shelf six 100-amp electric fuses, worth $61.29, place them in his shirt, and head to the gardening section of the store. Defendant picked up a bag of steer manure and carried it over his shoulder to the check-out counter. After telling the cashier at the register that he did not have enough money for the manure, he walked out of the store.
The loss prevention investigator followed defendant out of the store, stopped him, and asked if he had forgotten to pay for any merchandise. Initially, defendant denied he was in possession of anything he had not paid for but when asked again, he acknowledged he had taken the electric fuses without paying for them. At the time, plaintiff had $1 in cash and no credit cards. When asked why he took the fuses, he responded, â€
