People v. Congiardo CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the trial court “erred by failing to give any consideration,

much less the ‘great weight’ required by [section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)], to the

3 assertions that the current offense was connected to mental illness and childhood trauma.”

Additionally, defendant claims that the court “failed to take into account that unless the

five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a) was removed, the resulting

sentence was more than 20 years. [Citation.] When that is the case, dismissal is

mandatory, given . . . the words of the statute: ‘In this instance, the enhancement shall be

dismissed.’ ” Defendant’s arguments are meritless.

A. SECTION 1385, SUBDIVISION (c)(2)

“Section 1385(c)(2) provides that in determining whether to dismiss an

enhancement ‘under this subdivision,’ the court must consider nine listed mitigating

circumstances if proven by the defendant [citation], ‘unless the court finds that dismissal

of the enhancement would endanger public safety’ [citation]. That provision means that

if the court finds that dismissal of an enhancement ‘would endanger public safety,’ then

the court need not consider the listed mitigating…