People v. Smith

The sole question in this appeal is whether imposition of a five-year enhancement under Penal Code section 667 denied appellant equal protection because the statute contains no washout provision for remote convictions, as do other recidivist enhancement statutes. We reject appellant’s constitutional challenge to the statute, and affirm the judgment.

I

Appellant Kenneth James Smith, Sr., pled guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664.) The trial court found true the allegation that appellant had a prior serious felony conviction of robbery. (§§ 667, 1192.7, subd. (c).) The court sentenced him to a total of four years and eight months for the robbery and attempted robbery convictions and to a consecutive five-year term for the prior serious felony enhancement.

Appellant’s prior robbery conviction occurred in 1965. He was committed to state prison in that year, was released on parole in December 1969, and was discharged from parole in February 1973. At trial in the instant case appellant moved to strike that prior, arguing that imposition of the five-year enhancement violated fundamental principles of fairness and…