People v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (PIPKIN)

Michael P. Judge, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Tracy A. Mooney and Alex Ricciardulli, Deputy Public Defenders, for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

TURNER, P.J. —

The People of the State of California have filed petitions for writs of mandate seeking to set aside orders striking prior serious felony conviction findings pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (c) through (i) and 1170.12. [1] We initially issued our peremptory writ of mandate directing that the respondent courts set aside their orders striking the prior serious felony conviction findings and placing defendants, Randall Eugene Pipkin and Frank Rodriguez also known as Frank Mendoza, on probation. ( People v. Superior Court ( Pipkin ) (Cal. App.) review granted Nov. 22, 1995 (S049470).) The California Supreme Court granted review on November 22, 1995. On October 1, 1997, the California Supreme Court remanded these consolidated cases with directions that we vacate our decision and reconsider the issues in light of People v. Superior Court ( Romero ) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 508-532 [ 53 Cal. Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ]. Upon reconsideration, we conclude the orders striking the prior serious felony…

I. Introduction

The People of the State of California have filed petitions for writs of mandate seeking to set aside orders striking prior serious felony conviction findings pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (c) through (i) and 1170.12. 1 We initially issued our peremptory writ of mandate directing that the respondent courts set aside their orders striking the prior serious felony conviction findings and placing defendants, Randall Eugene Pipkin and Frank Rodriguez also known as Frank Mendoza, on probation. (People v. Superior Court (Pipkin) (Cal.App.) review granted Nov. 22, 1995 (S049470).) The California Supreme Court granted review on November 22, 1995. On October 1, 1997, the California Supreme Court remanded these consolidated cases with directions that we vacate our decision and reconsider the issues in light of People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 508-532 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ]. Upon reconsideration, we conclude the orders striking the prior serious felony conviction findings must be set aside. The respondent courts are directed to set forth in writing their reasons for striking the prior serious felony conviction…

I concur.

I write separately to emphasize that the holding of our opinion is very limited. All we decide here is that this matter must be remanded to the trial court because the reasons for striking the prior serious felony convictions are not in writing as required by People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ]. The People and the defendants agree that remand is required. We do not, and at this stage of the proceeding cannot, express a view as to whether or not the trial court on *1479 remand should or should not strike the prior convictions or whether the trial court is able to articulate proper reasons in writing for striking them, if in the exercise of its discretion, it should again decide to do so.