People v. Richmond CA5

DISCUSSION

Richmond argues “the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a five-year enhancement term for the prior serious felony conviction, in view of the doubling of the life term based on the same prior serious felony conviction, therefore the matter must be remanded.” Alternatively, he faults counsel for not objecting to its imposition. In essence, he argues the Three Strikes law is incompatible with section 667,

1 Because the facts are largely irrelevant to the issues on appeal, we omit a factual summary. All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2. subdivision (a), where the enhancement under each law is based on the same prior conviction. The People claim “the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a).” They also state Richmond has failed to prove his counsel was ineffective. We agree on each account. As Richmond acknowledges, in People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547 (Dotson), the Supreme Court “held that a five-year term consecutive to a Three Strikes term may be authorized, to fulfill the intent of the electorate in enacting the Three Strikes Law, even though both are based on the same…