People v. Farrell CA4/1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Farrell entered a Ralph's grocery store and placed several items worth

approximately $250 in a shopping bag and left the store without paying for the items.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

DISCUSSION

Farrell's challenge to his sentence is based on several contentions. First, he argues

the probation report was insufficient because it advised the court that Farrell was

absolutely ineligible for probation, based on his admission of a strike prior. Based on

that assertion Farrell argues the court was not fully informed of its sentencing options

regarding Farrell's suitability for probation and therefore the court had a sua sponte duty

to order a supplemental probation report. The conclusion counsel posits from this

syllogism is that the court would have likely granted his Romero motion and we should

remand the case for resentencing.

First, the premises upon which the argument is based are faulty because the

probation report, coupled with the information in the defendant's Romero motion, fully

informed the trial court of Farrell's criminal history, his health issues…