People v. Wilson CA1/5

DISCUSSION

I. Section 1385, Subdivision (c).

Wilson claims the trial court erroneously failed to consider whether to dismiss his strike per section 1385, subdivision (c), which requires a court to dismiss “an enhancement” if it furthers justice, “afford[ing] great weight” to specified mitigating circumstances. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1), (2).) Wilson forfeited this argument by failing to seek dismissal under section 1385, subdivision (c) during sentencing. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 356 [complaints about trial court’s exercise of sentencing discretion cannot be raised for the first time on appeal].) Wilson argues the

2 trial court had a mandatory duty to consider such dismissal and grant it if warranted. However, case law holds the court maintains discretion in this regard and the issue may be forfeited. (People v. Coleman (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 709, 723–724, fn. 8.) Wilson’s argument also fails on the merits. In People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 242–244, and People v. Tilley (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 772, 776, fn. 2, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District determined section 1385, subdivision (c) does not apply to prior strikes because the Three…