Can a defendant appeal against the effect of the Three Strikes law in a criminal case?

Defendant contends that "dramatic and harsh results" would ensue if this court were to interpret the Three Strikes law as having intended to qualify, as [18 Cal.4th 36] a separate "strike," a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony even if the sentence on that conviction was stayed under the provisions of section 654. In the absence of any constitutional infirmity, however, we are not at liberty to alter the intended effect of a statute on such grounds. (See generally, People v. Askey, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th 381, 387, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 [rejecting the defendant's claim that "because all his strikes were incurred in a single prior proceeding," a sentence of 25 years to life in prison was disproportionate and excessive].) It is worth noting, however, that our decision in Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628, affirms that a trial court retains discretion in such cases to strike one or more prior felony convictions under section 1385 if the trial court properly concludes that the interests of justice support such action. (13 Cal.4th at p. 504, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 917 P.2d 628.) ⁸

Under defendant's suggested interpretation, by contrast, a trial court could never

Page 302