Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dorvail Money was charged with the murder of Ricky Howard, who died of blunt head trauma after Money struck him with an 18-inch metal pipe during an altercation involving Howard and a woman known as Special. A witness told police she saw Money retrieve the pipe from his car and hit Howard, though she later denied seeing the strike at trial. In a pretrial interview played for the jury, Money said he felt threatened and hit Howard once in the back of the head while Howard stood, then struck him again after he fell to “make sure he was down.” Money's defense was that he acted in defense of another, and defense counsel specifically argued he acted to protect Special. The jury acquitted him of first degree murder and convicted him of second degree murder. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegation that Money had a prior serious or violent felony conviction from 2014 for assault with a deadly weapon.
In his sentencing memorandum, Money asked the court to strike the prior conviction, arguing it was over 10 years old, that he had completed probation, and that lifelong intellectual disabilities contributed to his conduct. He attached psychological evaluations diagnosing borderline intellectual functioning. The People requested a 30-year-to-life term—15 years to life doubled for the strike—and described the 2014 offense as a box-cutter attack causing severe facial injuries. The probation report listed convictions from 1998 through 2014. At the hearing, the court acknowledged the prior conviction was at least 10 years old but noted the current offense occurred in 2021, about seven years later. The court stated that despite Money's intellectual disabilities, there appeared to be no remorse, denied the Romero motion, and sentenced him to 30 years to life.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Three Strikes law establishes a sentencing norm and creates a strong presumption that a conforming sentence is rational and proper. Under section 1385(a), a court may strike a prior conviction in the furtherance of justice, but review is deferential: reversal requires a finding that no reasonable judge would have agreed with the decision. The court must consider the nature of the current offense, prior convictions, and the defendant's background, character, and prospects. Here, Money went to his car to retrieve a metal pipe and struck Howard twice, the second blow after Howard had fallen. His criminal history ran from 1998 through 2014, and the record showed the trial court specifically considered his intellectual disability at sentencing.
The court rejected Money's reliance on section 1385(c), section 1170(b)(6), and California Rules of Court, rule 4.432, explaining that those provisions govern enhancements or determinate sentencing, not the distinct Three Strikes analysis under section 1385(a). The seven-year interval between the 2014 conviction and the 2021 offense was not so remote as to place Money outside the scheme's spirit. The court also held that lack of remorse is a proper consideration because it bears on character and future prospects; Money cited no authority that presenting a defense warrants striking a prior strike, and his claim that his disability explained his lack of remorse was unsupported by the record. The court found no evidence supporting his suggestions of judicial bias. The judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Denial of a Romero motion under Penal Code section 1385(a) is reviewed deferentially and reversed only if no reasonable judge would have agreed with the trial court.
- Mitigating factors for enhancements under section 1385(c) and determinate-sentencing rules do not apply to Three Strikes strike decisions.
- A seven-year gap between a prior strike conviction and the current offense is not so remote as to require striking the prior.
- Lack of remorse is a valid factor in the strike analysis because it reflects on the defendant's character and prospects.
- Assertions of intellectual disability or judicial bias must be supported by record evidence to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This unpublished opinion applies the California Supreme Court's guidance in People v. Dain to confirm that section 1385(a) strike decisions turn on whether the defendant falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes scheme, not on enhancement-specific factors. It illustrates the practical burden on defendants seeking Romero relief: claims about disability, remoteness, remorse, or bias must be tied to record evidence, and unsupported assertions will not overcome the deferential standard of review.