Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Douglas Scott Enborg was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, simple battery on a cohabitant, false imprisonment by violence, making criminal threats, and assault likely to produce great bodily injury. The jury found true that he had sustained two strike convictions, two felony convictions, and two convictions for which he served separate prison terms. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 32 years to life. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction on count 3 for false imprisonment but otherwise affirmed the judgment in a prior appeal.
Following the enactment of Penal Code section 1172.75, which eliminated virtually all sentence enhancements based on prior prison terms, the trial court struck Enborg's section 667.5 prison priors, reducing his sentence by two years, and set the matter for a full resentencing hearing. In connection with that hearing, Enborg filed a motion requesting resentencing, to vacate his prior conviction, and to have his strike priors recalled and dismissed pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero).
Enborg argued in favor of his motion that he was exposed to substance abuse and domestic violence at a young age, was diagnosed with schizophrenia at age 16, and that incarceration forced him to address his mental health and substance abuse issues. He provided a mental health evaluation report and proof of participation in various rehabilitative programs. The People opposed the motion, arguing that Enborg presented a risk to public safety and that dismissal of the strike priors would not be in the furtherance of justice.
The Court’s Holding
The trial court denied the request to strike the prior strikes, stating that in looking at the pattern of criminal activity by the defendant, not only the offenses, but violations of parole and probation and continuing offenses in prison, it was not appropriate to strike any of the strikes. The court found that the defendant clearly falls into the spirit of the three-strikes law as someone who is a serious repeat offender deserving of the harsher punishment under the three-strikes law. The trial court did, however, grant Enborg's request to strike his section 667 sentence enhancements, reducing his sentence by five years to 25 years to life.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Romero motion. The court explained that the Three Strikes law establishes a sentencing norm and creates a strong presumption that any sentence conforming to these norms is both rational and proper. The trial court's ruling on a Romero motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the defendant has the burden of showing that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary.
The court rejected Enborg's argument that section 1385, subdivision (c), required the trial court to consider mitigating factors such as prior victimization or childhood trauma, finding that subdivision (c) is inapplicable to a request to dismiss a prior strike because the Three Strikes law is an alternate sentencing scheme, not an enhancement. The court also found that even if section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(3), applies, it simply states that the trial court may consider postconviction factors, and the word may is permissive. The trial court properly gave Enborg's criminal history the most weight, and on these facts, the denial of his Romero motion was not arbitrary or irrational.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court's denial of a Romero motion to dismiss prior strikes is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the defendant bears the burden of showing the decision was irrational or arbitrary.
- The mitigating factors identified in Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), do not apply to a request to dismiss a prior strike because the Three Strikes law is an alternate sentencing scheme, not an enhancement.
- Penal Code section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(3), provides that the trial court may consider postconviction factors, and the word may is permissive, not mandatory.
- A defendant's extensive criminal history, including prior convictions, parole violations, and continuing offenses in prison, can support a trial court's finding that the defendant falls within the spirit of the Three Strikes law.
- A trial court's decision to strike some enhancements while declining to strike prior strikes does not necessarily constitute an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This case reinforces the deferential standard of review applied to a trial court's denial of a Romero motion and clarifies that the mitigating factors in section 1385, subdivision (c), do not apply to requests to dismiss prior strikes. It also confirms that section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(3), is permissive, not mandatory, and that a trial court may give a defendant's criminal history the most weight in assessing whether the defendant falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law.
The decision provides guidance for trial courts and practitioners on the factors to consider when evaluating a Romero motion brought as part of a section 1172.75 resentencing, and it underscores the importance of a defendant's criminal history in that analysis.