Court Widens Judges’ Leeway on Three Strikes

SAN FRANCISCO â€”  The California Supreme Court, once again limiting the reach of the state’s three strikes law, ruled Thursday that judges have “broad authorityâ€� to reduce certain felony convictions to misdemeanors and spare defendants harsh sentences.

The decision is significant because it clarifies that a judge’s discretion to modify convictions in three strikes cases is not limited to considerations of public safety, such as the likelihood of a defendant committing more crimes.

The state high court had ruled in June that judges have the power to dismiss prior felonies or strikes. Since then, prosecutors have contended in a flurry of appeals that the leeway given judges to show leniency to three strikes defendants was extremely limited.

But Justice Janice Rogers Brown, writing for the court Thursday, said judges have broad latitude to reduce felony convictions in their court to misdemeanors for certain crimes considered “wobblers.�

Dozens of crimes are “wobblers,� including petty and grand theft, commercial burglary and assault with a deadly weapon other than a gun. Judges have the power to treat them as felonies or misdemeanors, and many three strike defendants face life sentences for wobbler convictions.

Under California’s 1994 three strikes law, a defendant with a history of violent or serious crimes convicted of any third felony must get 25 years to life in prison.

“We do not question the legitimacy of the three strikes law or the public safety animus it undeniably reflects,� Justice Brown wrote.

But to say that a judge may only consider public safety in deciding whether to grant leniency “would be one step shy of declaring the three strikes law eliminates the court’s discretion entirely,� she wrote.

The Supreme Court’s pivotal 5-2 decision affirmed a ruling by a Los Angeles trial judge who reduced a drug conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor, allowing a three-strikes defendant to receive probation rather than at least 25 years in prison.

The defendant, Steven Alvarez, was arrested by Long Beach police in 1994 after he was observed “on the wrong side of the street riding a skateboard,� the court decision said.

Police then discovered he was carrying drug paraphernalia and about half a gram of powdered methamphetamine. He had committed prior felony burglaries, and under three strikes, he faced 25 years to life for the third felony.

Superior Court Judge Sheila F. Pokras said she could not bring herself to sentence Alvarez to such a lengthy term. The Supreme Court had not yet ruled that judges could dismiss prior felonies in such cases, and she did not know whether she had that authority.

She decided instead to reduce the drug possession conviction, a wobbler, to a misdemeanor. Prosecutors appealed, and a Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the judge had abused her discretion. The court said she had failed to consider sufficiently Alvarez’s criminal past and the threat he posed to public safety.

In Thursday’s ruling, Brown called the Alvarez case “admittedly close.� She noted that the trial judge indicated “a certain measure of hostility toward the three strikes law.� But the judge also considered other factors, Brown said.

“While a defendant’s recidivist status is undeniably relevant,� Brown wrote, it is not necessarily the sole factor worthy of consideration. The court cautioned, however, that judges do not have total freedom and should assess “all relevant factors including the defendant’s criminal history.�

Los Angeles Deputy Public Defender Alex Ricciardulli, who represented Alvarez, called the ruling a “huge triumph for judicial independence.�

Ricciardulli noted that the court could have limited the power of judges in such a way that few could ever have opted for leniency in three strikes cases.

“They are announcing a very broad standard,� Ricciardulli said. “But the most important thing we get from this . . . is they reject the Court of Appeal and prosecution’s argument that the paramount concern must be protection of society.�

He said the court’s new standard will apply both to wobblers and to the striking of prior felonies in three strike cases.

“This is a two-way street, unfortunately for us,� the defense lawyer said. “When a judge refuses to dismiss a prior or refuses to declare an offense to be a misdemeanor and we appeal, that refusal is also going to be upheld.�

But Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Diana L. Summerhayes said she does not believe the wide latitude given to judges in wobbler cases applies to striking prior felonies. “As to the limits of that difference,� she said, “I can’t tell.�

Asked about the impact, she said “numerous� defendants fall into the category addressed by the state high court. She said she was disappointed by the ruling but pleased that the court affirmed the right of the prosecution to appeal when judges reduce wobblers.

Justices Marvin R. Baxter and Joyce L. Kennard dissented, arguing that the trial judge should be asked to review her decision now that it is clear she could have struck a prior conviction and sentenced Alvarez for a felony drug conviction without imposing a 25-year-to-life term. A second strike or serious or violent felony carries a doubling of the usual sentence.

The ruling was notable for reasons other than its legal significance. Although dated and released to the public Thursday, it was inadvertently placed on the court’s web site on Wednesday for about “60 seconds� under another case name, said court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.