Third Strike, Third Penal Code section 211 Offense – Six Year Prison Sentence!

Recently, in the Clara Shortridge Foltz Courthouse, I obtained a great result for my client charged with attempted robbery in violation of Penal Code section 664/211. My client had two prior Penal Code section 211 convictions, that is, two prior strikes from 2007 and 2012.

In the current case, my client was charged with an attempted robbery pursuant to Penal Code section 664/211. It was alleged that my client approached a young male, yelled “give me your phone,” and punch him in the mouth before fleeing. Upon contact with Los Angeles police officers, my client admitted to punching the victim. This offense constitutes a third strike for my client.

My client is thirty (30) years old and has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoia, and bipolar disorder. He previously held a full-time job as a painter and was involved in his community church.

I wrote a “Statement in Mitigation and Invitation to the Court to Strike the Prior Strike Offense Under Penal Code section 1385 and People v. Romero (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 497.” This motion argued that the conduct of this offense was outside of the spirit of the Three Strikes Law, based on my client’s mental health, the minimal value of the item involved and his willingness to take responsibility for his conduct at an early stage. Upon filing this motion, I met with the handling district attorney and the head deputy district attorney to discuss the matter.

The District Attorney’s Office agreed to strike one of my client’s strikes and offered a six-year prison sentence for the offense. With my client’s custody credits and the changes in credit allocation under Proposition 57, my client will only serve approximately 4 years for what should have been his third strike with a life sentence!

DISCLAIMER:

The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Escovar & Avila, LLP or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. The information on this website is a communication and is for informational purposes only. The facts of every case are unique and nothing on this page or on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and viewing of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result portrayed in this advertisement was dependent on the facts of this case. Results will differ if based on different facts.

Categories: