Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In October 2022, a Shasta County jury convicted Bryon David Ciceu of first-degree burglary, two counts of corporal injury to a cohabitant or dating partner, criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment by violence or menace, and misdemeanor vandalism. The charges arose from domestic violence over two days in July 2022. The jury also found aggravating circumstances involving great violence, victim vulnerability, abuse of trust, and weapon use. In a bifurcated proceeding, it found that Ciceu had a 2003 assault-with-a-deadly-weapon conviction qualifying as both a prior strike and a prior serious felony, along with findings concerning his criminal history, prior prison term, and supervision performance.
At the original sentencing, Ciceu asked the court to strike the prior strike and dismiss the five-year serious-felony enhancements under People v. Superior Court (Romero). The court refused, doubled the felony terms under the Three Strikes law, imposed but stayed the prior serious felony enhancements, stayed the sentence for count 5 under section 654, and imposed an aggregate sentence of 17 years four months. In Ciceu’s first appeal, the Court of Appeal remanded for a full resentencing. It directed the trial court either to impose or strike the serious-felony enhancements and to stay either the burglary count or one corporal-injury count under Penal Code section 654.
The same judge conducted the resentencing and reconsidered the original Romero motion; no new motion was filed. After again declining to strike the prior conviction, the court dismissed the serious-felony enhancements and stayed the sentence on count 2 as directed. Because the qualifying strike remained, the felony terms were again doubled. The resulting aggregate sentence was 16 years eight months. Ciceu’s second appeal challenged only the denial of relief under Romero.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. It explained that a court may dismiss a prior strike only in furtherance of justice, considering the current offenses, prior convictions, and the defendant’s background, character, and prospects. Review is deferential: the defendant must show an irrational or arbitrary sentencing decision, not merely that reasonable judges could disagree. A sentence conforming to the Three Strikes scheme carries a strong presumption of propriety, and extraordinary circumstances are required to place a defendant outside that scheme’s spirit.
The court rejected Ciceu’s reliance on the age of his 2003 conviction. Although remoteness can support striking a prior, the opinion found no crime-free rehabilitative period that would wash it out. Ciceu had seven subsequent convictions from 2004 through 2021, including two felonies and multiple probation violations, and had spent much of the intervening period imprisoned. The court also rejected his description of the current offenses as minor, citing the forced entry, physical restraint, threats, confinement, and use of a knife against his longtime partner. Those circumstances supported the trial court’s conclusion that the crimes involved violence, injury, and threats of injury.
The trial court had also considered Ciceu’s background. It found insufficient evidence to determine how mental illness contributed because no expert diagnosis or evaluation was supplied, while accepting childhood maltreatment as a relevant mitigating consideration. Balancing that evidence against the offenses and criminal history remained within its discretion. Finally, rule 4.420 did not prohibit considering aggravating factors both to impose an upper term and to deny a Romero motion. The Three Strikes law is an alternative sentencing scheme, not an enhancement, and denying the motion neither aggravated a base term nor imposed an enhancement. The appellate court therefore found no impermissible dual use and no abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- The judgment was affirmed, leaving in place the aggregate sentence of 16 years eight months imposed on resentencing.
- A remote prior strike does not wash out merely through the passage of time when the defendant has continued to incur convictions and lacks a crime-free period of rehabilitation.
- The trial court could accept childhood maltreatment as mitigation while still concluding that Ciceu remained within the spirit of the Three Strikes law.
- Using aggravating circumstances to select an upper term and to deny a Romero motion was not prohibited dual use because the Three Strikes law supplies an alternative sentencing scheme rather than an enhancement.
- The appeal did not reopen the convictions or the resentencing directions already completed on remand; it concerned only the renewed refusal to strike the prior conviction.
Why It Matters
The decision applies settled Romero and Carmony principles to a full resentencing rather than announcing a new standard. It illustrates how subsequent convictions, incarceration during the claimed remote period, violent current conduct, and the absence of supporting expert evidence can defeat an argument that a defendant falls outside the Three Strikes scheme. It also distinguishes a Romero ruling from base-term aggravation and enhancement imposition when assessing claims of dual use.
The opinion is expressly not certified for publication and states that California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restricts citation and reliance. Its disposition is limited to affirming the judgment; the opinion identifies no remaining sentencing issue for further remand.