People v. Fuhrman

Supreme Court of California · 1997 · Evidence

EvidenceThree Strikes lawPrior convictionsSection 654Romero remandThree Strikesprior convictionserious felony

Facts

In the current case, defendant was convicted of robbery and vehicle taking, with a weapon-use finding. The prosecution alleged two prior strike convictions based on 1989 convictions for robbery and assault with a firearm, both entered in the same prior proceeding; in that 1989 case, the trial court stayed sentence on the assault count under section 654. In the current case, the trial court treated both prior convictions as strikes and sentenced defendant under the Three Strikes law. Defendant argued that only one strike could arise from the single prior proceeding and that the stayed assault conviction could not count as a strike; he also sought remand under Romero.

Issue

May multiple prior serious or violent felony convictions obtained in a single prior proceeding each count as separate strikes under the Three Strikes law, or must they have been brought and tried separately? In addition, when a pre-Romero record is silent about whether the trial court understood its section 1385 discretion, is remand on appeal required? The court also considered, but declined to decide on this record, whether a prior conviction with sentence stayed under section 654 may count as a strike.

Rule

For purposes of Penal Code section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), a prior serious or violent felony conviction qualifies as a strike if it falls within section 667, subdivision (d); the statute does not require that qualifying prior convictions have been brought and tried separately. In a case sentenced before Romero, if the appellate record is silent as to whether the trial court understood its section 1385 discretion to strike prior felony allegations, appellate remand is not required; the defendant must seek relief by petition for writ of habeas corpus. A prior section 654-stayed conviction issue was not resolved in this case because the prior stay appeared unwarranted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Diego Marin is sentenced for a new burglary under California's Three Strikes law. The prosecution proves that ten years earlier, in one Los Angeles case, Diego pleaded guilty to robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, both charged in the same information and resolved in the same hearing.

Diego argues that only one prior strike may be counted because the two earlier felonies were not brought and tried separately. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that, for purposes of the Three Strikes law, a prior qualifying conviction need not have been brought and tried separately from another qualifying conviction in order to count as a separate strike. The majority relied on the plain language of section 667, subdivision (d), which defines qualifying prior convictions without adding a separately-brought-and-tried requirement. (Derived from People v. Fuhrman (n.d.).)