P. v. Hurtado

Filed 8/21/06 P. v. Hurtado CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael A. Cowell, Judge. Affirmed.

David M. Thompson, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ana R. Duarte and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________

Raul A. Hurtado was convicted of residential burglary, with true findings on allegations that he had suffered two prior serious felony convictions that qualified as strikes.[1] He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 35 years to life. Hurtado appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike at least one of his prior strikes. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Hurtado contends the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to strike at least one of his prior strikes in the interests of justice.[2] (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) We disagree.

A.

Hurtado insists he is not the type of recidivist the three strikes law was intended to punish -- because neither prior burglary involved violence, because both strikes were remote, because they occurred when he was in his early 20's, and because they both followed his consumption of alcohol (as did the current burglary). He points to a psychologist's report that says he was abused as a child, and suffered a â€