Metcalf

People v. Metcalf

Bad Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 634·47 Cal. App. 4th 248·55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 164·96 Daily Journal DAR 8106·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5089
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 3, 1996E016353California1,016 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

Defendants were charged with selling a controlled substance, cocaine, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). A jury convicted them and found that defendant Simon had two prior felony convictions. Defendant Metcalf was found to be a drug addict and was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 3050, 3051.) Defendant Simon was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison.

I-IV

V

Separation of Powers

Defendant Simon next argues that the three strikes law impermissibly violates the separation of powers provisions of the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. III, § 3.) Our Supreme Court has recently considered this issue in People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789 , 917 P.2d 628 ]. In that case, our Supreme Court decided that the three strikes law does not eliminate the trial court’s power to act on its own motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1385. (13 Cal.4th at pp. 529-530.) In reaching this conclusion, the court found that, if the statute was construed to eliminate the trial court’s discretion, the trial court would not have the power to dismiss unless the…

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.