In California Law Book What Is the Romero Act?
Question by Tina R: in california law book what is the Romero act?
california penal code what is romero act.
Best answer:
Answer by Dr. Snark
Hmm, let me go look. Let’s see…where did I put my California Law Book? I can’t seem to find it. Maybe you have a copy of the California Law Book?
Answer by Michael H
People v. Romero (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497
It was a California Supreme Court case that allows a court to ignore a prior “strike” conviction when imposing a felony sentence, it helps the accused avoid the 3-strike rule.
Not easy either, you have to prove that it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the prior strike conviction. Generally the new offense has to be less serious than the prior conviction.
Fighting back against heroin
8, an 18- and a 19-year-old boy were arrested elsewhere on Old South Lane — one for possessing a class A drug, the other for possessing class A with intent to distribute it. Though the calls were … Inside the home, they found a half-kilo of heroin …
Read more on Andover Townsman
Drug arrest nets Leon assistant superintendent
Officers subsequently searched the vehicle and found approximately 31.6 grams of cocaine, eight types of controlled prescription medications, including two types of Dilaudid, two types of Xanax, Klonopin, Oxycodone, Librium and Darvocet; a set of …
Read more on Apalachicola Times
POLICE BLOTTER: March 4, 2014
A 37-year old Odessa man was charged with possession of a controlled substance after officers reported finding the man with less than one gram of cocaine at about 2 a.m. Monday in the 1200 block of South Grandview Avenue. As of Monday, Michael Flora, …
Read more on Odessa American
Okay, I think I figured it out! It’s actually called the “Romero Decision”. Report On It:
Families to Amend California’s 3-Strikes’
Position on the Romero Decision
October 14, 1997
Families to Amend California’s 3-Strikes (“FACTS”) is a state-wide organization with the purpose of amending the 3-Strikes law so it applies only to violent and serious offenses. FACTS believes the application of the 3-Strikes law can be used in an unjust manner. In fact, FACTS believes the 3-Strikes law itself acknowledges that the 3-Strikes law can be applied in an unjust manner because of the discretion it allows to prosecutors.
Prosecutorial discretion is not enough to ensure that the 3-Strikes law will be used in only a just manner. Prosecutors are adversaries in the criminal justice system and are therefore naturally opposed to the rights of the offenders. Prosecutors are often evaluated, promoted and they run for political office based on how “tough” they are on crime. In most cases, the “tougher” they are on offenders, the better they are evaluated, promoted and the more elections they win. Thus, to believe that prosecutors will stand-up for justice rather than their own careers is to be naïve. Judges, however, are not adversaries but are supposed to be neutral participants and more concerned with whether due process and justice occur within the system. Therefore, to enhance the ability of justice to occur in the application of the 3-Strikes law, FACTS believes judges should also be allowed the discretion to disregard prior convictions if they believe a mandatory prison system is too cruel (as was held under the Romero decision).
[It should be noted that FACTS believes justice will occur even more frequently if the legislative process amends the 3-Strikes law so it is not applicable to non-violent and non-serious offenses. To believe that judges will always stand-up for justice rather than their own careers is also naïve.]
FACTS believes the public was not aware of how the 3-Strikes law could be applied in an unjust manner. The massive advertising of the 3-Strikes law as a deterrent to extremely violent crimes like murder, rape and child molestation overshadowed how the law could be applied to non-violent and non-serious offenders. Overlooked within the complexities of the law were the facts that: (1) non-violent crimes and minor offenses such as “possession of less then a gram of cocaine,” “forgery,” and “petty theft” can count as third strikes; (2) multiple counts during one act can count for multiple strikes; (3) it is being applied retroactively (meaning crimes committed back in the 1970s or earlier can count as strikes); and (4) crime committed by 16 and 17 year-olds can count as strikes.
The following pages are actual stories about prisoners who have been convicted under the 3-Strikes law. FACTS believes that these cases give evidence that not only can the 3-Strikes law be applied in an unjust manner, but it already is being applied in an unjust manner. Additional stories are continuously added to our web site at http://www.ags.uci.edu/~satij/FACTS.htm. o_O