Roman

People v. Roman

Good Law
111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 553·2001 D.A.R. 9759·92 Cal. App. 4th 141
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 6, 2001B145118, B149269California2,392 words

Opinion

Opinion

Grignon, J.

Defendant and appellant Arthur Roman was convicted of possession of a small quantity of methamphetamine and admitted three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 1170.12. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law. While defendant’s appeal was pending, the newly elected Los Angeles District Attorney, Stephen Cooley, issued a directive to his deputies that certain prosecutions, including controlled substance charges without quantity enhancements, were to be presumed by the deputies to be second strike cases, rather than third strike cases. Believing he would have received a more lenient sentence had he been prosecuted under this directive, defendant contends he should receive the benefit of the directive pursuant to the doctrine of abatement. We conclude the doctrine of abatement is wholly inapplicable to a district attorney’s change in policy, and therefore affirm. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we reject defendant’s contentions the trial court erred in instructing the jury in the language of CALJIC No. 17.41.1; the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his…

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.