The People v. Stiffler CA5

DISCUSSION

To establish that a trial court abused its discretion in denying a Romero motion, a defendant must show that “no reasonable person could agree” (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377) with the trial court’s determination that the defendant did not fall “outside the … spirit” of the Three Strikes Law (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161). Stiffler says he has shown that the court reached “a patently absurd result.” We disagree. The appellate record does not contain Stiffler’s written Romero motion, the People’s written response to the motion, or a complete account of Stiffler’s criminal history.2 The primary source of information presented to us as a basis for determining whether a reasonable person could find that Stiffler fell within the spirit of the Three Strikes Law is the remarks of counsel and the court at the sentencing hearing:

“[Defense counsel]: [T]here are a number of reasons why it would be appropriate in this case to strike the strike. Mr. Stiffler’s conviction was 14 years ago. He was 21 years old and he sustained that first degree burglary. It was not [a] violent felony. It was a serious felony. There was no violence as [far] as I’m…