In Re Iveys

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 364·54 Cal. App. 4th 1288·63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453·97 Daily Journal DAR 5999·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3558
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 9, 1997B109661California500 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perez, J.

After a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of possession of cocaine. Petitioner waived his right to a jury trial on the allegation that he had a prior robbery conviction within the meaning of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), the “Three Strikes” law. The superior court found that allegation to be true. Petitioner did not move to strike the prior enhancement allegation, and the trial court did not express any views as to whether it believed it had, or would have exercised, its discretion to strike the prior absent a motion by the prosecuting attorney. On October 4, 1994, the court sentenced petitioner to the middle term of two years in state prison, doubled pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1), for a total state prison sentence of four years. We affirmed petitioner’s conviction on October 20,1995. (People v. Iveys (Oct. 20,1995) B088245 [nonpub. opn.].)

On June 20, 1996, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ], in which it held that section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), did not preclude a court from striking allegations of prior convictions…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.