How have the courts treated the case of appellant in the context of the Three Strikes scheme?

The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Appellant has a lengthy criminal record and has failed to take advantage of opportunities for rehabilitation. In 1991 he was convicted of two counts of possessing a controlled substance for sale and sentenced to prison for five years in California. That same year, he was also convicted of inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant and battery with great bodily injury. He violated his parole once in 1994 and twice in 1995. In 1996 he committed the Texas strike as well as a kidnapping. In 1997 he was sentenced to prison in Texas for two years on the strike and 10 years on the kidnapping. In 2009 he was convicted of a sex registration violation. In 2010 he was convicted of misdemeanor second degree burglary. His commission of the current offense was triggered by an argument over crystal methamphetamine. The trial court noted that appellant was on probation at the time of the current offense and had failed to lead a "crime free life" since his 1997 Texas convictions. Accordingly, the court reasonably concluded that appellant did not fall

Page 8

outside the "spirit" of the Three Strikes scheme. (People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161.)

The judgment is affirmed.