Rusconi

People v. Rusconi

Good Law
186 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 349·236 Cal. App. 4th 273
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 2015D065478California2,912 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Recently, our Supreme Court held that where a defendant has suffered two prior convictions growing out of a single act, involving a single victim, only one of the convictions may be treated as a strike within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). (People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, 646-649 [ 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 277 , 328 P.3d 1020 ] (Vargas).) Contrary to defendant and appellant Monica Rusconi’s argument on appeal here, Vargas does not require any relief from the 25-year-to-life sentence she is now serving following her conviction of a third strike: felony driving while intoxicated after having been previously convicted of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol. (§ 23550.5, subd. (b).)

Although arguably Vargas represents a change in the law which might permit us to revisit three strikes sentences that are otherwise final, because the two strikes Rusconi challenges at this point grow out of an incident in which she killed two bicyclists and was convicted of two counts of manslaughter, the holding in Vargas has no application here. For decades, our courts have consistently determined that where multiple…

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.