P. v. Thompson
Filed 3/24/06 P. v. Thompson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. TINA LAVON THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. | E038374 (Super.Ct.No. FSB44132) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Marsha Slough, Judge. Affirmed.
Athena Shudde, 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, and Erika Hiramatsu and Robert M. Foster, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Tina Lavon Thompson (defendant) of attempting to pass a forged check (Pen. Code,[1] § 470a), possessing a forged driver's license (§ 470b), and receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (a).) The jury also found true that defendant had three prior strike convictions. (§§ 1170.12 & 667.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on the count of attempting to pass a forged check. The other prison terms were stayed under section 654. On appeal, defendant contends that her sentence constitutes cruel and/or unusual punishment. For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2004, Carla Manyari (victim) had her purse stolen from her travel agency in Long Beach, California. Among the items in her purse were her checkbook, credit cards, California driver's license, and a certified copy of her birth certificate.
The next day, defendant tried to cash one of the stolen checks at the San Manual Indian Bingo and Casino in San Bernardino County. Defendant presented the victim's driver's license, which had been altered. When casino employees became suspicious, defendant left the casino. A casino security officer, however, effected a stop on defendant's vehicle and ordered her out of the car. The security officer then transported defendant to the casino for questioning.
After conducting a brief investigation, a security officer called the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department. A sheriff's deputy responded; he placed defendant under arrest.
A search of defendant's purse revealed items stolen from the victim. When the officer searched defendant's car, he found the victim's purse, checkbook, birth certificate and her wallet, which contained her driver's license and credit cards. The officer also found other documents that were stolen from different victims.
Defendant claimed that she had not been trying to cash a stolen check. Instead, she was merely trying to turn it into authorities after finding it on a seat next to her when she was playing a slot machine.
A jury convicted defendant of attempting to pass a forged check, possessing a forged driver's license, and receiving stolen property. The jury also found true that defendant had three prior strike convictions.
Before sentencing, defense counsel filed a motion requesting the trial court to strike one or more of defendant's prior felony convictions under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, and/or under the cruel and unusual punishment proscription of the United States Constitution.
The trial court denied the motion. In denying the motion, the trial court acknowledged that the current offenses were neither serious nor violent. However, the court noted defendant's history and circumstances: (1) defendant had 4 prior convictions (1982 embezzlement conviction; 1983 robbery conviction; 1988 grand theft conviction; 1992 robbery conviction), all of which resulted in prison confinement; (2) defendant had a case similar to the current case pending in Riverside; and (3) defendant had committed the current offense just 10 months after her release from prison. The court also noted that defendant had spent the majority of her adult life in prison. Based on this history, the trial court concluded that defendant had a pattern of regular criminal conduct demonstrating a disregard for the rights of others and a continuing danger to society. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that defendant fell within the spirit of the â€
